Wilful default if has been committed by the tenant.

T.N. Singaravelu, J.

1. This is a revision petition directed against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent-landlords filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on three grounds, namely, wilful default in payment of rent, subletting the premises and requirement for their own use and occupation. The Rent Controller accepted the plea that there was wilful default, but rejected the other two grounds and ordered eviction on the first ground. The Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding with reference to willful efaultand dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenant. Hence the revision.

2. The point that arises for consideration is whether the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent. The rent for the premises is Rs. 1 75 per mensem and the tenancy commenced on 1st June, 1974. It is common ground that the tenant paid a heavy advance of Rs. 5,240 and later, a sum of Rs. 2,000 out of the advance Was repaid for the purpose of electrification and making improvements in respect of the building. It was a greed that the balance was to bead justedat threat of Rs. 50/- per mensem in the rent and the tenant was liable to pay only Rs. 125 per mensem as rent after such adjustment. Accordingly from 10th June, 1974, a sum of Rs. 50 has been adjusted in the rent, payable. These facts are not in dispute.

3.It is urged by the landlords that tie tenant failed to pay rent from 1st December, 1976, and that the default is wilful. Admittedly, the rent was regularly paid till April, 1976 and, on the own showing of the landlords, the rent from December, 1976 has not been paid. The defence of the tenant is this: Under Exhibit B-1 money order receipt he sent rent for the month of June, 1976 but the landlords refused the same. Then, the tenant sent the rents for Kay, June and July, 1976, by money order under Exhibit B-3 which was also refused. Thereupon, the tenant sent the rent for May, 1976 till August, 1976, by money order under Exhibit B-4, which was also refused. However, the landlords chose to accept one money order sent under Exhibit B-5. Later, the tenant sent the rent for December, 1976 and January, 1977 by money order and the same was not accepted - ids Exhibit B-7 which is the money order coupon for the remittances of rent for the months from December, 1976 to May, 1977. This was also refused, Exhibit B-9 shows that the rent for the period June to August, 1977 was also tendered and it was not accepted.

4. Thus, it is urged on behalf of the tenant that the tenant thereafter deposited the monthly rent in the Canada Bank from. September, 1977 onwards and he had produced the pass book for perusal before the Appellate Court. The request for reception of the pass bock as additional evidence was rejected on a technical ground, since there was no proper application for receiving the same. However, the Appellate Authority seems to have perused the pass book during the course of arguments, but did not choose to receive the same as additional evidence. The said pass book was referred to in this Court also, though it is not marked. Learned Counsel for the tenant urged that this document will clinch the matter and establish that there is no wilful default on the part of the tenant. There is some force in this argument.

5. Learned Counsel for the landlords contended that even if the pass book is allowed to be received in evidence, it will only show that the tenant has been depositing the rents in Canada Bank in his own name and not in the name of the landlords. In other words, it is urged that this is not sufficient compliance of Section 8 of Act (XVIII of 1960). In reply, learned Counsel for the tenant placed before me a ruling of this Court in Thriyal Nayoki v. Ayyivu Chetiar (1976) 1 M.L.J. (Sh. N.) 15 and contended that the tenant has substantially complied with the requirements of law and therefore it is enough for the purpose of holding that there is