The main legal point established is that willful default under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, requires intentional, deliberate, and conscious failure to pay or tender rent, with full knowledge of the legal consequences.

(This petition is preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.10.2004 made in RCA No.6 of 2004 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 9.12.2003 made in RCOP No.6 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Kovilpatti.)

The tenants are the revision petitioners.

2. The respondent herein, as landlord, has filed RCOP No.6 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kovilpatti, seeking an eviction order against the revision petitioners on the ground of willful default, under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called "the Act". The non-payment of rent, which is sought to be labelled as willful default, giving a ground for eviction, has spread over only for five months, i.e. from May, 2002 to October, 2002.

3. The revision petitioners/tenants opposed the application, admitting the non payment of rents, for the said period, contending that when they attempted to deposit the rent into the Court, the Court refused to issue lodgment schedule and that the non payment of rent has occasioned due to ill-health, and therefore the non payment should not be considered as willful default, entitling the landlord to get an order of eviction.

4. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, concurring with the case of the landlord, rejecting the contention of the revision petitioners/tenants, ordered eviction concurrently, thereby causing grievance to the tenants. Both the courts have come to the conclusion that the tenants, having admitted the arrears of rent, failed to explain satisfactorily for their non payment in time and in this view, considering the specific order of the court in the previous proceedings, the non payment of rents, though it is for a period of five months, should be construed as willful default. In this way, eviction order came to be passed concurrently, which is under challenge in this revision.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that though there was some default in not depositing the rent into the court, as directed or not tendering the rents, considering the period of non payment of rents, as well as the reasons assigned for the non payment, the same should not be construed as willful default, since there was no intention on the part of the tenants to commit such default, which were not properly considered by the courts below.

7. This submission is sought to be repelled by the learned counsel for the landlord urging that in view of the proceedings initiated by the tenants and in view of the further fact that they have obtained an order for depositing of rent, non compliance of the same should be construed as willful default, since the parties were aware and conscious of the fact, about their right and duties also. Such person, despite the order of the court, if fails to pay the rents periodically, as per the contract between the parties or as per the direction of the court, it has to be construed only as willful default and no concession could be given, considering the periods of non payment of rents, since the period is immaterial, to construe whether the default is willful or not.

8. It is an admitted position that the tenants have to pay the rents, commencing from 19th of English month and ending with 18th of succeeding month. It is also an admitted fact, that from 19th May, 2002 to 18th October, 2002, for five months, rents were not paid or deposited. It seems, there was some dispute between the parties, resulting the landlord, refusing to receive the rent, when tendered. Therefore, the tenants, who are conscious of their right, probably, oblig