ORDER 1. The unsuccessful tenant is the petitioner in these revisions. 2. The respondent/landlord filed eviction petitions in RCOP Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2006 under section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act alleging that the petitioner/tenant has failed to pay the rent regularly and hence, these petitions. 3. The respondent/landlord filed RCOP No.5 of 2006 stating that he is the owner of the property bearing Door No.410, 19th Phase, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur village and Taluk. The tenant was inducted on the southern portion of the petition mentioned property on 01.05.1996 for the monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- till 31.10.1996 and thereafter, the rent was increased to Rs.17,500/- till 2002 and from 01.08.2002, the rent was increased to Rs.19,250/-, but he has neglected to pay the amount and the arrears of rent amounts to Rs.12,85,000/-. 4. The further case of the landlord in RCOP No.6 of 2006 is that the tenant was inducted on the northern corner and middle portion of the premises on 01.01.1997 for the rent of Rs.3,000/- per month and the rent was increased in the year 1999 to Rs.3,600/- per month, but he failed to pay the rent regularly and the arrears of rent comes to Rs.3,70,000/-. 5. The landlord filed RCOP No.7 of 2006 contending that the tenant was inducted in the first floor of the premises on 01.01.2000 on the monthly rent of Rs.3,250/-, but the petitioner has failed to pay the rent and the arrears amount comes to Rs.2,30,750/-. 6. The landlord filed RCOP No.8 of 2006 stating that the tenant was inducted on the western portion of the petition mentioned premises on 01.11.1996 for the monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and the rent was increased in the year 1999 to Rs.2,750/-, but the tenant has not paid the rent regularly and the arrears of rent comes to Rs.6,21,000/-. 7. The petitioner/tenant resisted the eviction petitions stating that as per the Lease Agreement, dated 01.05.1996, the tenant was inducted on the southern portion, measuring to an extent of 3500 sq. 7. The petitioner/tenant resisted the eviction petitions stating that as per the Lease Agreement, dated 01.05.1996, the tenant was inducted on the southern portion, measuring to an extent of 3500 sq. feet and under a Lease Agreement, dated 01.11.1996, the tenant shifted their company to the northern portion and in the year 1997, the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the southern portion and on 25.03.1997, he entered into a sale agreement with Mr.S.Umedraj Jain, in his independent capacity and in part performance of the said agreement, he wanted to hand over the possession. Therefore, the tenant shifted their occupation from northern portion to the southern portion and as per the new rental agreement, dated 05.08.1999, the tenant has agreed to pay the Rs.17,500/- as rent. 8. The tenant has further stated in the counter that the said agreement has to be renewed for another five years at the option of the parties and on the increase of 10% on mutual consent and the tenant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance at the inception of the tenancy. 9. It is further alleged that even before the inception of the tenancy, the landlord has borrowed money for constructing a shed in the portion and after the tenant was put in possession, the landlord had borrowed money from the tenant on several occasions for interest, that all these borrowals have been acknowledged by the landlord by executing promissory notes, debt acknowledgments, etc. 10. It is further stated that apart from this, the landlord used to collect the rent in lump sum and the rents on the borrowals went beyond the rent payable by the company/tenant and therefore, it was agreed by the landlord that the rents could be adjusted towards interest and even after, adjusting the rent, the landlord remains to pay to the tenant towards arrears of interest and principal. 11. The tenant has further specifically contended that the petitioner/tenant is in possession as a tenant only in respect of the entire southern portion, measuring to an extent of 3500 sq. feet and he is in occupation in the rest of the area under the agreement of sale, dated 25.03.1997 and therefore, the eviction petitions filed in respect of other areas are not maintainable. 12. Before the Rent Controller, the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. feet and he is in occupation in the rest of the area under the agreement of sale, dated 25.03.1997 and therefore, the eviction petitions filed in respect of other areas are not maintainable. 12. Before the Rent Controller, the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have found that the tenant has failed to pay the rent and ordered eviction. Against the concurrent findings of the courts below, the tenant had preferred these revisions. 13. Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities, ordered eviction without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating the evidence on record that the tenant has committed willful default; that the landlord was not in the habit of issuing receipts for the rent received from the tenant and he has also collected rents in lump sum and therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as willful defaulter. 14. The learned counsel further contended that the landlord had entered into an agreement to sell the property with the Managing Director of the Company/tenant, namely S.Umedraj Jail in his independent capacity and after the agreement, the tenant was not in possession in the other portions than the southern portion and therefore, the eviction petitions in respect of the other portions are not maintainable. 15. The learned counsel further submitted that the authorities have come to the conclusion on the only basis that the tenant has not produced any material to show that the landlord had borrowed money from the tenant and for adjustment of the interest toward rent. However, the tenant had filed applications before the appellate authority under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to prove his case, but the appellate authority without appreciating the same, has rejected the petitions. Therefore, the order is perversed and the same is liable to be set aside by this court. 16. Per contra, Mr.T.Thanagamani, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is the owner of the petition premises to an extent of 8200 sq. feet and the tenant was inducted on various dates for different portion of the petition premises, but the tenant has with supine inference failed to pay the rent regularly. 17. 16. Per contra, Mr.T.Thanagamani, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is the owner of the petition premises to an extent of 8200 sq. feet and the tenant was inducted on various dates for different portion of the petition premises, but the tenant has with supine inference failed to pay the rent regularly. 17. The learned counsel further submitted that the tenant has statutory obligation to pay the rent regularly and once when the landlord has proved that the tenant has committed willful default, the burden shifts on the tenant to prove the payment of rent; that the tenant in this case have made vague and bald allegations stating that the landlord had borrowed money from the tenant and the rent was adjusted towards interest on the borrowals, but the tenant has not specifically pleaded the quantum allegedly borrowed by the landlord and he has also not produced any material to establish the fact. 18. The learned counsel further submitted that the tenant in his counter stated that the agreed rent was Rs.17,500/-, but in his evidence admits that he was paying rent Rs.40,800/- per month, which reveals that the tenant has occupied the entire area and the rent was Rs.40,800/- per month. 19. It is further submitted that the authorities have properly appreciated the entire evidence and have come to the correct conclusion that the default committed by the tenant is willful and ordered eviction, which need not be upset by this court. 20. In the instant case, the landlord/the respondent herein has filed eviction petitions in RCOP Nos.5 to 8 of 2006 specifically stating that the petitioner/tenant inducted on different dates with regard to the portions of the petition premises, but the tenant has failed to pay the rent regularly. The case of the tenant is that he was inducted by a lease agreement, dated 01.05.1996 in respect of the southern portion of the property to an extent of 3500 sq. feet and later, as per the lease agreement, dated 11.11.1996, the tenant has shifted to the northern portion of the property. 21. The case of the tenant is that he was inducted by a lease agreement, dated 01.05.1996 in respect of the southern portion of the property to an extent of 3500 sq. feet and later, as per the lease agreement, dated 11.11.1996, the tenant has shifted to the northern portion of the property. 21. It is further contended that the tenant is the company and the landlord, by an agreement of sale, dated 25.03.1997, agreed to sell the property to the Managing Director of the company, namely S.Umedraj Jain in his independent capacity to sell the portion of the petition premises and in the year 1999, as per the request of the landlord, the tenant again shifted to the southern side of the portion. 22. The further case of the tenant is that the landlord even before the inception of the tenancy had borrowed money for construction of a shed and after the tenancy also, the landlord had borrowed money from the tenant on several occasions for interest and the landlord has also agreed to adjust the rent towards interest. However, undisputedly, the tenant has not produced any material before the Rent Controller to prove the alleged loan transactions between the landlord and the tenant. The tenant has made an attempt to produce additional evidence before the appellate authority and the list of documents would reveal that the documents of the year 1990, 2000, 2001 and 2005. 23. It is settled law that additional evidence cannot be entertained before the appellate authority as a matter of routine and the parties have to satisfy the requirement contained in Order 41 Rule 27. 24. Order 41 Rule 27 reads as follows:- “27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court:-(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, the Appellate Court. 24. Order 41 Rule 27 reads as follows:- “27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court:-(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, the Appellate Court. But if- (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or] (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced to an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 25. In the case of Basayya I Mathad vs. Rudrayya S. Mathad, 2008 (1) CTC 537, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “..It is clear that parties to the lis are not entitled to produce additional evidence as of course or routine but must satisfy the conditions stated in sub-clauses (a)& (aa). Admittedly, such recourse has not been resorted to neither by the party concerned nor adhere those principles by the High Court. Paragraph 3 of his order shows that the learned Judge verified the document produced on his direction without complying the mandate as provided under Rule 27 of Order 41. Hence, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Judge based on a document produced at the time of argument de hors to Rule 27 referred above cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In such circumstances, his ultimate conclusion treating the suit property as a family property partible among the members of the family is also liable to be set aside. In fact, sub clause (2) of Rule 27 mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, it shall record the reason for its admission. In such circumstances, his ultimate conclusion treating the suit property as a family property partible among the members of the family is also liable to be set aside. In fact, sub clause (2) of Rule 27 mandates that wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, it shall record the reason for its admission. It is needless to mention that the High Court neither followed those conditions for production of additional evidence nor recorded the reason for basing reliance on the same.” 26. In the present case, the eviction petitions were filed in the year 2006, but the tenant filed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce the documents of the year 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2005. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has not satisfied the legal requirement to receive the additional document and the same was rightly rejected by the appellate authority. 27. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs. Dilbahar Singh, 2014 (5) CTC 217, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “45. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court/First Appellate Authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the Court/Authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in Revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that findings of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by Court/Authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or impugned before it as indicated above. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its Revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an Appellate power to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of facts as a Court of First Appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 28. Indisputably, the tenant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the landlady has borrowed huge amount from the tenant and failed to pay the interest and the principal. Further, the tenant has not produced any agreement entered into between him and the landlady for the adjustment of the rent towards interest. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have rightly observed that the tenant has not produced even a single promissory note to show that the landlady has borrowed loan from the tenant and held that the tenant has committed an act of willful default and ordered eviction. Both the authorities, on proper appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, reached the finding of fact that the tenant has committed willful default. 29. In the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court referred to supra, this court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to come to a different conclusion and I do not find any reasons to over turn the findings of the courts below. 30. In the result, all the revisions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.