Compliance with the procedure under Sec.8 of the Act is essential to avoid eviction for wilful default.

(Revision Petitions filed against the common judgment dated 23.11.2005, made in R.C.A.No.505/2004, on the file of the VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the order (common) dated 22.3.2004 in R.C.O.P.Nos.2077 and 2269 of 2003, on the file of the XIV court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

Common Order:

These Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the common judgment dated 23.11.2005 rendered in R.C.A.No.505 and 506 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the common order in R.C.O.P.No.2077 2269/2003, on the file of the XIV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The tenant is the revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions, filed against the common judgment made by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.Nos.505 and 506 of 2004. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.2077/2003 for evicting the revision petitioner from petition schedule premises on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of monthly rents from August 2003 to October 2003. The tenant filed a counter affidavit denying any wilfull default and contended that the rent was already paid for the month of August and September 2003 but the landlord did not issue any receipt for the rents. For the month of October 2003, the landlord refused to receive the rent when the rent was offered by him and therefore he sent a Money Order which was also refused by the landlord. Thereafter he issued a legal notice calling upon the landlord to specify a bank account so that he can deposit in the bank. Without specifying the bank account, RCOP has been filed by the landlord and before the Rent Controller, he remitted the rent for the month of October to December 2003 and the same was received by the learned counsel for the landlord. In such circumstances, there was no default at all as per the tenant.

3. The tenant has also filed RCOP No.2269/2003 to deposit the refused rent for the month of October 2003 and also the future rents in respect of the petition premises.

4. The learned Rent Controller conducted a common trialand passed an order on 22.3.2004 allowing the RCOP No.2077/03 for eviction on the ground of wilful default filed by the landlord and dismissing the RCOP No.2269/03 filed by the tenant. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the Rent Controller dated 22.3.2004, the tenant filed two appeals in RCA Nos.505 and 506 of 2004. The learned Appellate Authority also by a common judgment dated 23.11.2005 dismissed the appeals and hence the tenant has filed the above Revision Petitions against the concurrent common judgment.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions.

6. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that it is a case of non-issue of receipt by the landlord even after receiving the payments from the tenant for the months of August and September 2003. ;Insofar as the rent for October 2003 is concerned, it was refused by the landlord and therefore steps have been taken by the tenant to deposit the same in accordance with the Rent Control Act. When the rent control proceedings were pending, the monthly rents were paid then and there and as such there is no default at all. Learned counsel pointed out that if the totality of the entire facts are taken into consideration, it would prove that the conduct of the tenant is always to pay the rent and it is the landlord who is in the habit of not issuing any receipt for the rent paid and not accepting the rent when it is attempted to be paid. Thus learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays for setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority, confirming the order of the Rent Controller.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that even now the rent for the months of August and September 2003 were not paid and therefore the tenant is guilty of sup