Strict compliance with statutory provisions, particularly Sec.8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, is essential, and failure to follow the prescribed procedure for depositing rent into court disentitles the tenant to plead that there was no wilful default on his part.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 26.2.2003, made in R.C.A.No.134/1994 on the file of the rent control appellate authority-cum-II Addl.Sub-Court, Coimbatore, confirming the order dated 18.8.1994 made in R.C.O.P.No.203/1990, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-rent control authority, Coimbatore.)

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 26.2.2003, made in R.C.A.No.134/1994 on the file of the rent control appellate authority-cum-II Addl.Sub Court, Coimbatore, confirming the order dated 18.8.1994 made in R.C.O.P.No.203/1990, on the file of the District Munsif-cum-rent control authority, Coimbatore.

2. The tenant is the revision petitioner.

3. The original landlord D.Shanmugam filed RCOP No.203/1990 against the revision petitioner for an order of eviction on the ground that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in the payment of rent. By order dated 18.8.1994 the rent controller allowed the RCOP by holding that the revision petitioner/tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent. Against the order of the rent controller, the tenant filed RCA No.134/1994 and the Rent Control appellate Authority by order dated 26.2.2003 dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of rent controller. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority confirming the order of rent controller, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act').

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the original landlord passed away and respondents 1 to 3 herein were added as respondents 2 to 4 in RCA No.134/1994 on 12.11.2002.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the documents filed and the judgments referred to in support of their submissions.

6. The case of the landlord before the rent controller is that the revision petitioner is a tenant paying a monthly rent of Rs.650/- and he has not paid the monthly rent on and from December 1988. Therefore he sent a notice dated 27.6.1990 calling upon the tenant to pay the rental arrears, for which a reply dated 12.7.1990 was sent by the revision petitioner/tenant informing that rent up to April 1990 was already deposited in court and he has also enclosed two pay orders for Rs.650/- each along with the reply. On verification it was found that the revision petitioner/tenant deposited a sum of Rs.1300/- on 15.3.1989, Rs.1800/- on 13.7.89 and on the very same date another sum of Rs.150/- and yet another sum of Rs.650/- were deposited by him. Further on 12.7.90 another sum of Rs.1300/- was deposited and all these amounts would represent the rental arrears for a period of 6 months, whereas a sum of Rs.11,050/- for a period of 17 months was due and payable by the revision petitioner/tenant when the notice dated 27.6.1990 was sent by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord prayed for an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default committed by the revision petitioner/tenant.

7. The revision petitioner/tenant opposed the eviction petition on the ground that he was forced to deposit the monthly rent in court as the landlord refused to receive the rent. Similarly he was forced to deposit 2 or 3 months rent in the court as there were shortage of chalans for which he could not be held responsible. The rent controller after going through the entire evidence held that the revision petitioner/tenant has failed to inform the landlord about the deposit of rent in the court and he has not explained with acceptable reason for depositing the rent into court. The rent controller has further observed that the revision petitioner/tenant has proved the allegation that the landlord has refused to receive the rent when it was paid to him. The rent controller after going through the register kept in the court for deposit of rent found that the rents were not properly deposited as and when it