JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court/Rent Control Appellate Authority, in R.C.A. No.1206 of 2006 confirming the order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.O.P. No.1038 of 2006. 2. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlady, who filed a petition for eviction in R.C.O.P. No.1038 of 2006 on the file of Rent Controller, XIV Judge, Small Causes Court on the grounds of willful default and own use and occupation. 3. The case of the landlady is that the tenant had defaulted in paying monthly rent and the electricity consumption charges from the month of March 2006 till the month of May 2006 and the petition premises is required for own use and occupation of her daughter Nirmala. 4. The tenant filed her counter and contested the petition stating that she sent money orders four times, but, the landlady deliberately refused to receive the same and the claim for own use and occupation of the petition premises for her daughter is not bonafide. 5. Before the Rent Controller, the landlady examined two witnesses, as PW1 and PW2 and marked Exhibits P1 to P6 and the tenant examined two witnesses RW1 and RW2, but no document was marked on the side of the tenant. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller has held that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent and also the premises is required for use and occupation of the daughter of the landlady. On both grounds, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the order, the tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A. No.1206 of 2006 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the tenant has filed the above revision. 6. Heard Mr.G.Ameedius, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Karunanithi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no willful default by the tenant and even as per the allegation of the landlady, the rent was not paid from the month of March 2006 to May 2006. In fact, the tenant tendered every month rent to the landlady, but, the landlady with malafide intention, refused to receive the rent. In fact, the tenant tendered every month rent to the landlady, but, the landlady with malafide intention, refused to receive the rent. So the tenant sent rent by money order, which was also refused by the landlady. Thereafter, the tenant filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.1448 of 2006 under Section 8(5) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for depositing the rent into court. In the R.C.O.P. proceedings, the tenant have been regularly depositing the rent and therefore, there is no willful default committed by the tenant. 8. Learned counsel further submitted that there are nine portions owned by the landlady and the tenant is occupying only one portion and even after filing of the eviction petition, some of the tenants vacated and the landlady inducted new tenants, that the daughter in law of the landlady filed a suit before the City Civil Court and also filed a petition for revocation of Will before this Court. It is also ordered in her favour. In view of the induction of the new tenants, the claim of the landlady is not bonafide and the eviction petition was filed only with malafide intention to evict the tenant from the petition premises. Learned counsel further submitted that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have not properly looked into the evidence of the tenant and ordered eviction, hence, they are liable to be set aside by this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the tenant did not pay the rent from March 2006 and only after sending notice for eviction, she sent rent by money order. But, the tenant did not sent the electricity charges, only due to the reason the landlady refused to receive the money order. Learned counsel further submitted that the tenant was inducted by the landlady and the civil dispute between the landlady and her family members does not have any relevancy to decide the issues involved in this revision petition. Admittedly the daughter of the landlady is residing in the rental premises. The landlady is a senior citizen and she requires the assistance of her daughter at her old age. Further, the tenant cannot dictate terms that in which portion her daughter should reside. Admittedly the daughter of the landlady is residing in the rental premises. The landlady is a senior citizen and she requires the assistance of her daughter at her old age. Further, the tenant cannot dictate terms that in which portion her daughter should reside. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently held that the tenant has committed willful default and the requirement of the landlady is also bonafide, which do not warrant interference by this Court. 10. Relationship of parties and the quantum of rent are not in dispute. The contention of the landlady is that the tenant has defaulted from the month of March 2006 to May 2006. But the tenant contended that the landlady refused to receive the rent and so she sent the rent by money orders. Though the tenant had produced xerox copy of the money order receipts by way of filing additional typed set, the tenant did not choose to mark those documents during the trial. Further, the tenant did not also mark the orders passed in R.C.O.P. No.1448 of 2006, in which the tenant is claiming to have deposited the rent regularly. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have held that though the tenant claimed to have sent the rent by money order, but she did not produce any document to prove her contention. The tenant ought to have marked the documents before the Rent Controller to prove her case that there was no willful defult, but, she has not chosen to do so. Therefore, the documents produced by the tenant cannot be looked into to decide the issues involved in the revision petition. 11. It is seen from the records that the landlady and her daughter have categorically deposed that daughter of the landlady is residing in a rental premises and she requires the petition premises for her own use and occupation. The evidence of the landlady was not challenged by the tenant. As per the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (3) CTC 152 Rasi silks by its partner K.Arunachalam Vs.Rasi Silks T.A.Venkatachalam. The landlady can choose portion is suitable for her occupation and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms. The evidence of the landlady was not challenged by the tenant. As per the judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (3) CTC 152 Rasi silks by its partner K.Arunachalam Vs.Rasi Silks T.A.Venkatachalam. The landlady can choose portion is suitable for her occupation and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms. Both the Rent Controller as well as Rent Control Appellate Authority have decided the issues, based on the oral and documentary evidence and hence, I could see no infirmity or perversity in the orders. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition 1 of 2010 is closed. No costs.