S SUNDARAM PILLAI KOUSALAYA DEVT MURUGESA MUDALIAR N S DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL THAHIRA BEEVI M BALAKRISHNAN K R KRISHNAN Vs. V R PATTABIRAMAN:P LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARYA:SELVARAJ CHETTIAR:B S RAMACHARI:R A MUTHIAH NADAR:FATHIMA BAI:P BHANUMATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals involve more or less an identical point of law relating to the interpretation of the term 'wilful default' .appearing in the proviso to section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') coupled with the Explanation which seeks to explain the intent of the proviso. We have heard counsel for the parties at great length and a large number of authorities have been cited before us in support of both the parties.

(2.) Before we take up the points of law involved in these appeals we would briefly narrate the bare facts of each of these cases in order to test the correctness of the points argued before us.

(3.) In civil appeal No. 1178 of 1984 the respondent-landlord let out the suit premises No. 3-B, New No. 2-B, Davidson Street, Broadway, Madras, to the appellant-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- for non-residential use. The appellant, despite repeated reminders, did not pay the rent for the period from October 1978 to August 1979. The respondent filed a suit on 2-12-79 for evicting the appellant on two grounds : (1) wilful default in payment of rent, and (2) material acts of waste committed in the building.