The judgment reaffirmed the legal principle that wilful default must be intentional, deliberate, and conscious, with full knowledge of the consequences, and failure to follow the prescribed procedure dis-entitles the tenant to plead non-wilful default.

These two Revision Petitions arise out of a common order passed in RCOP Nos.20 of 1994 and 4 of 1995 and the connected appeals in RCA Nos.2 and 3 of 1997 respectively.

2. The petitioner herein is the tenant in both the revisions. The respondents herein preferred PCOP No.20 of 1994 for an order of eviction against the petitioner/tenant on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 160) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). RCOP No.4 of 1995 was preferred by the petitioner under Section 8(5) of the Act for grant of permission to deposit the rent into the Court due for the months of October and November, 1994 and also for subsequent months and continue to deposit the future rents. The learned Rent Controller in RCOP 20 of 1994, ordered eviction against the petitioner on the ground of wilful default while rejecting the claim of the landlord for owner's occupation. RCOP No.4 of 1995 preferred by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller in view of the order of eviction passed in RCOP 20 of 1994. The lower Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of eviction ordered by the Rent Controller.

3. As far as the petitioner's application in RCOP No.4 of 1995 was concerned, the lower Appellate Authority was of the view that the same was not maintainable inasmuch the same came to be filed after the filing of RCOP No.20 of 1994.

4. The respondents filed RCOP No.20 of 1994 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default by alleging commission of wilful default on the part of the petitioner for the period subsequent to August 1991 till the date of filing of the eviction petition. It was also contended that the rent which was fixed at Rs.750/- per month on and from 1-1-1986 was subsequently increased to Rs.1500/- from 1-1-1990 with the consent of the petitioner and that after adjustment of a sum of Rs.10,000/- borrowed from the petitioner on 25-1-1973, rent fell due from August, 1991 onwards.

5. According to the petitioner, the rent which was fixed at Rs.750/- per month from 1-1-1986 continued as such, that it was never increased to Rs.1500/- as claimed by the respondents, that the respondents refused to receive the rent from the month of February, 1993, that thereafter, when the same was sent by post in the form of Demand Draft on various dates between 5-8-1993 and 18-6-1994, the respondents refused to receive the same on all those occasions, that subsequently, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 22-9-1994 along with a Demand Draft for Rs.14,250/- covering the period February, 1993 to August, 1994 stating that if the same is not accepted, the respondents should specify the bank account. In the course of the evidence before the learned Rent Controller, it was admitted on behalf of the respondents that a Demand Draft for Rs.14,250/- was received under protest, that the subsequent month rent, namely, September 1994 at Rs.750/- was also received by post and that it was not correct to state that the rent for October 1994 at Rs.750/- was refused. It is also in evidence as admitted on behalf of the petitioner that the rent for October and November, 1994 were deposited in Court in RCOP No.4 of 1995.

6. The learned Rent Controller held that the rent was only Rs.750/- and not Rs.1500/- as claimed by the respondents. The learned Rent Controller also reached a conclusion that there was wilful default as alleged by the respondents. However, it was held that even the admitted rent was not paid into the Court after the filing of RCOP No.4 of 1995 in the respective months. Though it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that because of his ill-health, he could not deposit the rents into Court on the respective dates, the Rent Controller held that such an excuse will not erase the factum of wilful default committed by the petitioner. It was on that ground, namely, that the non-deposit of