A tenant's failure to pay rent for 18 months without any justification constitutes wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), and the subsequent deposit of rent after the eviction petition is filed does not negate the finding of wilful default.

Sivasubramaniam, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment in R.C.A. No. 139 of 1982 on the file of the appellate authority (III Judge, Court of Small Causes). Madras. The petitioners are the landlords and the respondent is the tenant.

2. The petitioners/landlords are the owners of the petition mentioned building and they filed a petition for eviction against the respondent/tenant under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) on the ground that the respondent has committed wilful default in the payment of rent 1.6.1978 onwards and that he had subleased the premises and ceased to occupy the same for a continuous period of 18 months without sufficient cause. The respondent resisted the application contending that one Dathuram Devkar, who was the original landlord, was collecting the rent through his agents, that after his death, his agents were collecting the rent upto May, 1978 without revealing the fact that the said Dathuram Devkar was dead and that When he came to know about his death in June, 1978, he was not able to ascertain the legal heirs who are entitled to receive rents and therefore he did not pay the rents. He further contended that when the petition for eviction was filed, he remitted the entire amount immediately into the Court and therefore, he has not committed any wilful default in the payment of rents. He denied the allegations of the sublease of the premises and also the non-occupation of the premises continuously for a period of 18 months.

3. The learned Rent Controller, accepted the contentions put forward by the tenant and dismissed the eviction/petition. As against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 139 of 1982. The appellate authority agreed with the finding of the learned Rent Controller, and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Mr.S.V. Jayaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the legal representatives of the deceased landlord Dathuram Devkar have been residing in the second floor of the same building occupied by the respondent as tenant and, therefore, the contention of the respondent that he did not know the legal representatives cannot be accepted. He further submitted that two registered notices were sent to the tenant under Ex.P.4, and Ex.P.6, but they were returned with an endorsement that the door was always locked." He pointed out that when the respondent himself has admitted that some of the legal representatives ware residing in the same building and he was paying rents to them earlier, the respondent cannot be heard to say that he was not aware of the details of the legal representatives of the deceased landlord. According to him the findings of the authorities below are perverse in nature and, therefore, this Court has got ample jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act and he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court report in Vinod Kumar v. Surjit Kaur in support of his contentions.

5. In answer to the said contentions, Mr. A. Chenchuram Reddy learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that admittedly the respondent was regular in payment of the rents earlier to June, 1978, that he was not able to ascertain the details of the legal representatives of the deceased landlord and, that, therefore, he was not in a position to pay rents to any one. Further he submitted that nobody demanded rent from the respondent and as soon as the eviction petition was filed, the entire rent was deposited by him into court. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent has not committed any wilful default in the payment of rents.

6. It is no doubt true that the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have concurrently held that the respondent has not committed wilful default in payment of rents. Further it was held that the respondent has not ceased to occupy the premis