( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order dated 22-10-1991 in R. A. No. 339 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad. The landlord filed rent case on the ground of wilful default for the period from 1-2-1978 to 31-7-1980. Admittedly the monthly rent is Rs. 23/ -.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, P. Ws. l and 2 were examined and no Exhibits were marked. The respondent-tenant examined R. Ws. l and 2 and got marked exhibits R-1 to R-7. Ex. R-1 is the rent receipt for Rs. 267/- dated 28-9-1978 for the period from 1-10-1974 to 18-5-1975, Ex. R-2 is the rent receipt for Rs. 216/- dated 28-9-1978 for the period from 19-9-1975 to 30-6-1976, Ex. R-3 is dated 8-12-1978 for Rs. 69/- paid for the period from 11-10-1976 to 31-12-1976, ex. R-4 dated 10-11-1978 is the receipt for Rs. 69/- paid for the period 1-7-1976 to30-9-76,ex. R-5dated 19-8-1979 is the receiptforrs. 299/-for the period from 1-7-1977 to 31-1-1978, Ex. R-6 dated 29-10-1980 is the receipt for payment of rs. 500/- and Ex. R-7 dated 12-5-1981 is the receipt for payment of Rs. 300/ -.

( 3 ) BOTH the Courts held that the burden to pay the rents regularly is on the tenant. If he failed to do so, mat would amount to wilful default. The mere fact that the landlord received the rents irregularly as indicated above is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that they agreed for irregular payment of rent. Consequently, it allowed the petition and ordered eviction of the tenant.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the tenant paid rents at irregular intervals as indicated above, it should be inferred that the landlords consented to receive the rents at irregular intervals. The landlords all of a sudden changed the mode and without issuing notice to pay the rents regularly have filed the eviction petition.

( 5 ) IN this case, admittedly no notice is given to the tenant alerting him to pay the rent every month regularly. The landlords lulled the tenant in the belief that things are alright. Therefore, in the instant case, no ground is made for wilful default. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mrs. A. J. D souza vs. Dr. C. K. Govind rao wherein it was held. "while considering the non-payment of rent for a particular period, ramaswamy, J. , (as he then was) observed in Dr. T. S. Kumar vs. Smt. K. Lakshmi Bai (C. R. P. 326/85 dt. 8-7-1986 (unreported) that non-payment of rent for a particular period cannot be construed to be wilful default. In that case the default is only for one month and me learned Judge found that by no stretch of imagination it can be construed to be wilful default on the part of the tenant, it has been observed by this Court that generally the landlords decline to receive the rents for two or three months with a view to make it a ground in the eviction petition. Default for one or two months just prior to the filing of the eviction petition has to be viewed very cautiously. The statutory right given to the tenant cannot lightly be taken away on account of the confusion created by the landlord in not receiving the rents just one or two mon ths prior to the filing of the petition. The lower appellate Court has ta ken into consideration the fact of payment of the rent by the end of the succeeding month. If no period has been stipulated in the agreement, it has to be paid atleast by the end of the succeeding month. While considering a case that a monthly tenant is under an obligation to pay the rent from month to month, the Supreme Court in S. P. Deshmuk vs. Shah Nihal Chand Waghajibhai Gujarati (AIR 1977 SC 1985) observed as follows: normally, a monthly tenant is under an obligation to pay the rent from month to month but this obligation is subject to a contract to the contrary. Such a contract need not be reflected in a formal document and can be spelt out from the conduct of the parties spread