Wilful default by tenant proved.

This civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful landlady in rent control proceedings.

2. Brief facts are the following: The petitioner herein purchased the suit premises from Ramasami Chettiar on 14.11.1979. Thereafter, since no rents were paid, a notice demanding rents for the period from November, 1979 to January, 1981 was sent by the petitioner respondent. In reply to this notice, the respondent has stated inter alia that what was let was only a site. The respondent has paid a sum of Rs.5,000 by way of advance to vendor of the petitioner, that a sum of Rs.1,400 has been paid towards property tax, the vendor has agreed to adjust the said amount from the rents payable by her. According to the respondent, there was no default in payment of rents. It may be mentioned that the notice was issued by the petitioner, by mistake, rents were demanded from respondent from 1.11.1978. While issuing a rejoinder to the reply sent by the respondent, the petitioner has corrected the period of demand as from November, 1979 to the date issue of rejoinder. The petitioner acknowledged the payment of Rs.5,000 towards advance the vendor. However, the petitioner denied the claim of payment and adjustment of property tax as claimed by the respondent. The petitioner also denied that what was let out was the site. After issuing a rejoinder, the petitioner filed H.R.C.No.555 of 1981, on the file court of Small Causes, Madras, on 24.1.1981. The petition for eviction was filed on grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in payment of rents; (2) acts of waste; and (3) letting.

3. The petition was resisted by the respondent mainly on the ground that the learned Controller has no jurisdiction to try the case as the lease was only of a site without superstructure, and the superstructure was put up by her. The respondent denied allegations regarding wilful default, acts of waste and sub-letting.

4. The learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of pleadings, evidence and arguments, held against the petitioner on all the three points. Consequently, he dismissed the petition for eviction. On appeal, it appears, the petitioner has confirmed the relief only with reference to wilful default in payment of rents. On the question of sub-letting and acts of waste, arguments were addressed before the Appellate Authority. On the question of wilful default, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller therefore, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present civil revision petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.Raghavachari, elaborately argued the matter and contended that both the Authorities below have made much about the committed by the petitioner and his counsel in mentioning the period of default in paying rents and in claiming the rents from November, 1978 in the notice (Ex.P-1) without due regard to the rejoinder (Ex.p-3). He also submitted that there is no claim for adjustment of the advance amount of Rs.5,000 and the adjustment of the amount paid by property tax cannot be entertained as there was no prior permission by the petitioner vendor, to pay the property tax. He also submitted that the Authorities below went assuming that all the property tax paid by the respondent was with reference to the in question. In support of his contention that the tenant has no right to pay the property voluntarily, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Jagannatha Chettiar Swarnambal, (1984)2 M.L.J. 6.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mr.Jayabalan, also argued elaborately contending that in the light of the inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner in Ex.P and in the evidence, the Authorities below were right in holding that there was no default in the payment of rent. He placed reliance on Ex.P-1 notice demanding rent November, 1978 which relates to a period prior to the purchase of the premises petitioner. Neither the petitioner nor his vendor gave notice about the sale in favour pe