JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J, :— Special leave granted.

2. This tenants appeal raises the question whether a tenant who omits to pay or tender the rent in respect of the demised premises under the belief that he had a right to purchase the property under a prior agreement to sell and was, therefore, not obliged to pay the rent can be said to be a wilful defaulter within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 10(1) lays down that a tenant shall not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Ss. 12 and 13 of the Act. Clause (i) of subsection (2) of that section next provides that a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant may apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf and the Controller on being satisfied that the tenant has not tendered the rent due by him within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is due shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. This is, however, subject to the proviso which reads as under :

"Provided that in any case falling under clause (i), if the Controller is satisfied that the tenants default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may notwithstanding anything in section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected."

The proviso, therefore, makes it clear that if the Controller is satisfied that the tenants default is not wilful he may give the tenant an opportunity to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord and on such payment or tender being made within the time allowed, the landlords application for eviction shall be rejected. The benefit of this proviso is available to only those tenants who are not guilty of wilful default. In the present case the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the tenants default was wilful and hence the benefit of the proviso was not available to him. The question then is whether this conclusion reached by the courts below can be sustained on the facts found proved.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The respondents purchased the demised premises by a registered sale-deed dated 7th December, 1977 for Rs. 70,000/-. The appellant was in actual possession of a part of the premises as a tenant of the vendors at the date of purchase. After the purchase of the property the respondents served the appellant with a notice dated 13th December, 1977 calling upon him to pay the rent due and deliver vacant possession of the demised premises. The appellant replied to the notice on 29th December, 1977 alleging that the vendors had orally agreed on 14th October, 1977 to sell the property to him for Rs. 70,000/- and had received Rs. 5,000/- as earnest. The appellant, therefore, contended that he was under no obligation to pay the rent and vacate the premises since he was ready and willing to purchase the property. The respondents sent a reply denying the existence of any such oral agreement and filed a suit for eviction. It may here be mentioned that on the date of the purchase of the property the rent was paid to the vendors up to the end of November 1977. The respondents, therefore, claimed the rent from December 1977 to May 1978 from the appellant. Since the appellant failed to pay the rent for the said period the Courts below came to the conclusion that he was a wilful defaulter and passed a decree in ejectment against him. The tenant has, therefore, come in appeal to this Court.

4. The short question then is whether it can be said that the tenants default to pay or tender rent from December 1977 to May 1978 was not wilful to avail of the benefit of the proviso extract