K MOHIDEEN SAHIB Vs. ODRE SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant is the petitioner. The respondent herein filed a petition for eviction under section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960), for eviction of the petitioner herein, on the ground of wilful default. The case of the respondent is that he let out the petition-mentioned premises to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.75.00 and that the petitioner has not paid rent from January, 1981 onwards and thus has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the period from January 1981 to June, 1981. It is further alleged that the petitioner in order to cover up his default caused a notice dated 20.6.1981 to be issued to the respondent, on false and untenable grounds calling upon the respondent to specify a Bank in which the rents have to be deposited. In reply, the respondent directed the petitioner to deposit the rents in the Current Account in the Grindlays Bank, N.S.C. Bose Road. But the petitioner has not chosen to deposit the rent in the Bank. The petitioner herein contended that he has been regularly paying rent, that it was the respondent who refused to receive rent, that the respondent refused to receive the rent sent by money order and that thereafter the petitioner sent a notice to the respondent calling upon him to specify bank. The petitioner has not received the reply notice dated 4.7.1981 alleged to have been sent by the respondent. He has further alleged that the respondent had previously filed an application for eviction on the ground of sub-letting and he was unsuccessful both before the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority and the appeal was disposed of in H.R.A.No.1275 of 1979. The respondent has also filed a revision-petition against that order contending that the rent is not at Rs.75.00 and he claimed rent at Rs.150.00 from the petitioner and the same is pending as such, he is not entitled to file a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default. According to the petitioner, he has deposited the entire arrears of Rs.525.00 on the first date of Hearing. On the side of the respondent landlord, he was examined as P.W.1 and Exhibits P-l to P-5 were marked. On the side of the petitioner-tenant, he himself was examined as R.W.I and Exhibit R-l series were marked. The learned Rent Controller held that the respondent herein has established the wilful default in payment of rent and consequently he ordered eviction. On appeal, the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the said order Hence the aggrieved tenant has preferred this revision.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since the respondent refused to receive the rent sent by money order, the petitioner sent a notice to the respondent calling upon him to specify the name of the bank in which he could deposit the rent, that the alleged reply notice was not received, that he deposited the arrears on the first date of hearing, that his failure to resort to the proceedings under section 8 of the Act would not constitute a ground of wilful default and that in any in the circumstances of the case the default cannot be construed as wilful in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the latest pronouncement. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is aged about 80 years and that both the authorities had not properly interpreted the meaning of wilful default with reference to the facts of the case.

(3.) The only question to be considered in this revision is whether on the facts of the case the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent and whether the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside.