Tenant found not punctual in paying rent of the premises occupied by him.

(Civil Revision Petition against the decretal order dated 19.9.2001 in R.C.A.Nos.746 and 744 of 1997 passed by the Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai reversing the order dated 22.4.1997 in R.C.O.P.Nos.1479 and 879 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai.)

Aggrieved against the order passed by the appellate authority cum VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A.No.746 of 1997 and 744 of 1997 in and by which the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller cum XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.O.P.Nos.1479 and 879 of 1995 has been set aside, the landlords have filed these revision petitions.

2. The landlords' case before the Rent Controller in brief can be narrated as hereunder:-

The petition mentioned premises belong to the landlords and the respondent herein viz., M/s.Raja Stores is the tenant of the premises and the agreed tenancy is according to English calendar month. The tenant is continuing the business in metal works even after his father's death who originally became the tenant of the premises. Whileso, the tenant is not regular in paying the rents and has also committed wilful default in payment of rents from September 1992 onwards inspite of repeated demands made by the landlords. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

3. Both the petitions were resisted by the tenant by filing counter to the effect that even from the lifetime of his father, the tenant viz., Ravichandran is conducting the business in the petition mentioned premises on monthly tenancy arrangement. He has not committed wilful default in payment of rents. On the other hand, it is usual on the part of the landlords to collect the rents from the tenant in lumpsums and thereby, no notice demanding the payment of rents month wise was issued by the landlords. In such circumstances, the tenant cannot be found fault as if he has committed wilful default and thereby liable to be evicted from the premises.

4. After having considered the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller cum XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes has found and come to the conclusion that there is wilful default on the part of the tenant and consequently, ordered for eviction in both the petitions. On appeal in R.C.A.Nos.744 and 746 of 1997 preferred by the tenant, the appellate authority cum VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes has reversed the finding and set aside the order of eviction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, after taking me through the entire oral and documentary evidence, submitted that the reversal order passed by the appellate authority is not proper and justified and instead the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller alone is proper and justified and that the question of wilful default in payment of rents in substance has to be appreciated upon the facts and circumstances of each case and particularly the conduct of the tenant and the landlords in paying and receiving the rents. Even though the appellate authority has relied upon the ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in RASHIK LAL v. SHAH GOKULDAS (AIR 1989 SC 920) and reversed the order of eviction, the facts and circumstances of the said ruling cannot be exactly made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

6. He further pointed out that in the above cited ruling relied on by the appellate authority is a case where the tenant alone was to make payment of rents in lumpsum ranging from two months to four months at a time and it was accepted by the landlord without any protest or objection regularly and thereby the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the understanding can be inferred to the effect that payment of rent can be made in lumpsums if it is convenience, etc. But, in this case, it is pertinent to note that the te