Waiver of right of landlord waived his right to evict tenant.

Ratnam, J.

1. The tenant, who is in occupation of one room in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 10, and three rooms, a Varandah, two bath rooms and open space in the ground floor, on a monthly rent of Rs. 155 in door No. 74, Narayana Mudali Street, Madras-1 is the petitioner in these Civil Revision Petitions, arising under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Respondents 1 to 3 in these Civil Revision Petitions are the landlords and there is no dispute regarding this. They in R.C.P. No. 1424 of 1983, filed under S.10 (2) (i) of the Act, before the Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, prayed for an order of eviction against the petitioner from the room in her occupation in the ground floor on the ground that she had committed wilful default in the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem for 21 months from 1-5-1981 to 31-1-1983. In the counter filed by the petitioner in that application, she denied having committed wilful default in payment of rent and stated that she had always been ready and willing to pay the entire rent or deposit it before the Court as per its directions and that she had also deposited the entire rent in the branch of the Indian Bank at Kothaval Bazaar to show her bona fides, as the money orders sent by her, had been refused by the landlords. In R.C.O.P. No. 1425 of 1983 filed under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act before the Rent Controller, (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras the landlords prayed for an order of eviction against the petitioner with reference to the other portions of the building in her occupations on the ground that she had committed wilful default in the payment of rent for a period of 21 months from 1.5.1981 to 31.11983 at the rate of Rs. 155 per mensem. In addition, they also prayed that they required the premises in the occupation of the petitioner as and by way of additional accommodation. The petitioner, in her counter, refuted the claim of the landlords for additional accommodation, and she pleaded that though she had been willing to pay the rents, the landlords evaded to receive the rents and that she is ready and willing to pay the sum of Rs. 3,255 claimed as arrears of rent, either directly to the landlords or deposit it into court as per the directions of the Court.

2. Both the applications were heard together on common evidence. On a consideration of the evidence, the Rent Controller found that the landlords had not established that the petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rents, as claimed in both the petitions, that the bona fide requirement of the landlords of the premises in the occupation of the tenant as and by way of additional accommodation was not established, and, therefore, the landlords are not entitled to an order for eviction against the petitioner as prayed for. On the aforesaid conclusions, R.C.O.P. Nos. 1424 and 1425 of 1983 were dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the landlords preferred appeals in R.CA. No. 331 and 336 of 1985, respectively before the Appellate Authority (VII Judge Court of Small Causes) Madras. On a reconsideration of the entire evidence, the Appellate Authority held that the petitioner had not paid the rents and that she had also not taken any steps whatever to deposit the rent, and, therefore, the petitioner should be held to have committed wilful default in the payment of rent in respect of both the tenancies. However, the Appellate Authority found that the requirement of the landlords on the ground of additional accommodation had not been made out. On the aforesaid conclusions, the Appellate Authority passed an order of eviction against the petitioner with reference to the portions in her occupation. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in C.R.P. Nos. 2461 and 2528 of 1986.

3. It is now necessary to refer to a second round of proceedings for evi