THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.2087 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner is the tenant. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.2.2010 in C.M.A.No.1/2009 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti in reversing the order dated 30.9.2009 passed by the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti in RCC.No.5/2006 and thereby ordering eviction of the tenant, the present revision is field. 3. The respondent is the landlady and she filed RCC.No.5/2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default. The respondent denied the landlady and tenant relationship and denied that he committed any default. The trial court holding that the landlady failed to prove that the tenant committed any default, dismissed the R.C.C. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady filed appeal and in the appeal, the lower appellate court reversing the judgment of the trial court ordered eviction. 4. Though the tenant denied the landlady and tenant relationship, in his counter at paragraph no.6 stated that “she returned to Tirupathi and this respondent paid the alleged entire rent from November, 2004 to October, 2006 in the month of November, 2006 and did not insist for receipt in view of close relationship with the petitioner.” This statement in the counter is clear that the tenant admitted that he is the tenant. 5. Nextly, the case of the landlady is that the tenant committed willful default in payment of rent and the tenant denied the same. As per the judgment of this court in OMKAR TEL v. MOHD. ABDUL RAHMAN AND OTHERS[1], the burden is on the tenant to establish that he had not committed any default, muchless, willful default in payment of rent. Further there is also no material evidence on record to show that even after filing of the rent control case, the tenant deposited any amount. Considering all these circumstances and by setting aside the order of the trial court, which placed the burden on the landlady to prove that the tenant committed default, the lower appellate court rightly set aside the order of the trial court and ordered eviction of the tenant and I do not find any ground to interfere with the same and the revision is devoid of any merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage, submitted that the parties are close relations and the tenant may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the premises. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed. No costs. 8. The revision petitioner – tenant is granted three months time for the date of receipt of a copy of the order for vacating the premises in question and in case of default, the respondent – landlady is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law for execution of the decree seeking eviction of the tenant. AVS --------------------------------- 20—09—2010 [1] 2010 (4) ALD 550