Wilful default in payment of rent of tenant proved.

This Revision is filed by the landlord under the Rent Control Act. He filed H.R.C.O.P. No.3 of 1984, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Turaiyur, for eviction of the respondent herein, on the ground that he committed willful default in payment of rent, and also on the ground that the building is required for his own occupation.

2. It is averred in the petition that rent is payable at the rate of Rs. 75/- per mensem on or before the 5th of every succeeding month according to English calendar. According to the landlord, in spite of the contract between the parties, the tenant failed to pay rent from 1-4-1984 wilfully and wantonly. It is further averred in the petition that the petitioner has no other residential premises than the petition mentioned building, and that the same is required for his personal convenience.

3. In the counter statement filed by the respondent, it is stated that he began to occupy the building from 1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Later, in the year 1975, a fresh agreement came into existence and as per that, respondent was liable to pay Rs. 75/- per month as rent, on or before the 5th of every succeeding English month. The respondent was a contractual tenant till 30-6-1979 and thereafter became a statutory tenant, and he is entitled to the benefits of the Act. The respondent denies the allegation that he wilfully failed to pay rent from 1-4-1984 in spite of repeated demands by petitioner. According to him, though he was ready to pay rent every month, the petitioner used to receive the rent in lump sum right from the beginning of the tenancy from the year 1974, as can be seen from the receipts issued by the petitioner's agent. According to the respondent, the petitioner's agent wanted the respondent to pay Rs. 100/- as rent from April, 1984, and for this also, the respondent agreed. But, for reasons best known to them, they refused to receive the rent from the respondent. Therefore, the respondent sent the rent through money order, which the petitioner refused to receive. According to the respondent, there was no wilful default. Regarding personal occupation, it is said that the, petitioner is a permanent resident of Perumalpalayam Village, and that he has no intention to reside at Turaiyur. The respondent would say that the alleged requirement is only a ruse to evict him from the demised premises.

4. Before the Rent Controller, petitioner examined himself as P.W. I and marked Exs. A-I to A-6 on his side, and the respondent examined himself as R. W. I and marked Exs. R-I to R-2 in support of his case.

5. After evaluating the entire evidence, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in paying the rent, and that the building is also bona fide required by the landlord for his own occupation. The petition was allowed, and the respondent was give two months' time to vacate the premises.

6. The tenant preferred B.C.A. No. 34 of 1986. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller. If found that the landlord was not entitled to get eviction on both the grounds. It said that when it was the habit of the petitioner (landlord) to receive rent in a lump sum, the respondent (tenant) cannot be said to have committed wilful default. It also said that even though the suit notice was issued in 1979, eviction petition was filed only in 1984, and this shows that the tenant might not have committed wilful default and that the conduct of the landlord also shows that he acquiesced the tenant paying the rent belatedly. In so far as the claim for eviction on the ground of own use is concerned, the Appellate Authority held that the claim was not bona fide. It was based on the ground that the petitioner wants a residential premises to be used for. non- residential purpose, and that the same is not mentioned in the eviction petition. It has said that when he was examined, he deposed that he wanted the building for his textiles business, w