Rent to be paid by tenant in time as per the petition of the Court.

Ratnam, J.

1. The tenant is the Petitioner. In R.C.O.P.No. 686 of 1984 filed under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the respondents prayed for the passing of an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that having obtained an order for deposit of rents in H.R.C.No. 569 of 1981 under Section 8(5) of the Act, the tenant wilfully defaulted in the payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 350 for the months of April, May, July, September and October, 1983. In the counter filed by the petitioner, a plea was raised that as a result of the obtaining of orders under Section 8(5) of the Act in H.R.C.No. 569 of 1981 the respondents could not initiate proceedings for eviction against the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act and that there was also no wilful default in the payment of rents for the months in question.

2. The learned Rent Controller found that though the application under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act for eviction at the instance of the respondents was maintainable despite the earlier orders under Section 8(5) of the Act, the petitioner had not committed wilful default in the payment of rents for the period in question and in the view, dismissed the application for eviction. On appeal, however, by the respondents before the Appellate. Authority, it was found that the petitioner had deliberately omitted to deposit the rents into court after obtaining a deposit order and the failure to pay the rents had also not been in any manner satisfactorily explained and therefore, the petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rents at least for the months of April and September, 1983 and that deserved the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in his occupation. It is the correctness of this order that is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition.

3. Before proceeding to consider the contentions urged, it would be necessary to advert to a few undisputed facts. In respect of the premises under the occupation of the petitioner, the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent's are the landlords and the monthly rent payable by the petitioner is Rs. 350. At the instances of the petitioner, H.R.C.No. 569 of 1981 was filed under Section 8(5) of the Act praying for permission to deposit the rents from August, 1980 onwards till the date of the application and also the future rents on the ground that the landlords refused to receive the same. On 27.9.1982, by an order passed in H.R.C.No. 569 of 1981 by the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, the petitioner was permitted to deposit the rents from August, 1980 and uptodate and also the future rents, deducting the unadjusted advance. It is common ground that this order has become final. It is in the background of the proceedings taken by the petitioner that the question of wilful default asserted by the respondents herein against the petitioner in the matter of non-payment of rents has to be considered.

4. According to the case of the respondents, the petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rents even as per the order passed in H.R.C.No. 569 of 1981 for the months of April, May, July, September and October, 1983. In order to establish this, the respondents relied upon the several notices under Exhibit P.1 series relating to the deposit of amounts of or at the instance of the petitioner into Court pursuant to the order passed in H.R.C.No. 569 of 1981. There from it is seen that on 16.2.1983, the rent for January, 1983 had been deposited. For February, 1983, the rent had been deposited on 28.3.1983. Under Exhibit P.3 dated 20.4.1983, a sum of Rs. 350 had been deposited, though the month has not been specified. The next communication under Exhibit P.1 series is on 21.7.83, in and by which the respondents have been informed that a sum of Rs. 700 had been deposited towards the rent due for the mo