Lump sum payment for 11 months at a time by tenant held willful default.

M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.

1. In this case the revision petitioner is the landlady who has filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 123 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirunelveli for eviction of the tenant, who is a medical practitioner on the ground of wilful default in the payment of, arrears of rent for 11 months between September, 1976 and July, 1977 to the tune of Rs. 705 deducting Rs. 10 paid in excess for August, 1976. The contention of the landlady before the Rent Controller was that the tenant is a chronic wilful defaulter in the payment of rent and that he has committed wilful default as mentioned above in the payment of 11 months rent.

2. The plea of the tenant is that the landlady had requested him to mate lump such payment stating that if payments are made monthly they would be spent away and that even though the tenant was paying the rent in lump sum in the past, the landlady was received the same without any demur.

3. After a full-fledged enquiry, the Rent Controller found that the, landlady had led the tenant believe that he should pay the rent in lump sum, that there was no wilful default in the payment of rent. The landlady had also added another ground that the building was required for her own occupation for the purpose of education of her children at Tirunelveli. The plea of the tenant is that the requirement for educating the children is not a boom fide one and that the landlady's intention was to let out the premises for higer rent.

4. Still another ground stated in the petition was that even though the building was let out for residential purpose, the tenant has been using the residence as a clinical laboratory also. The learned Rent Controller has found that the evidence in the proceedings revealed that the children of the, landlady might study only in the tutorial college at Tirunelveli, that P.W. 2 had stated that he did not know the tutorial college, Where their sons are studying and that in Exhibit A-12 letter, dated 1st June, 1974 the purpose of the requirement of the building was stated as for managing the property as well as for higher education and that therefore the requirement of the landlady was not true and bona fide.

5. Regarding the use of the premises as a clinical laboratory is concerned, the evidence disclosed that a major portion of the building was utilised by the doctor-tenant for residential purposes only, even though the room was utilised as a clinic and that the landlady admitted in evidence that the tenant had taken the building mainly for running a clinic. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller has found that the third ground stated in the petition is not a real ground. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed.

6. The tenant had remitted the entire 11 months rent immediately after receipt of the notice from the landlady.

7. On appeal to the appellate authority, namely, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, the findings of the Rent Controller have been confirmed in C.M.A. No. 2 of 1979 by order, dated. 24th September, 1980. Hence this revision.

8. The main grounds that are urged in the revision are that both the Courts have failed to properly consider the continuous wilful default committed by the tenant in the payment of rent, that the lower Court had fallen into an error in turning down the bona fide requirements of the premises for the landlady's own occupation. The alleged misuse of, the premises for running a clinical laboratory is not urged in revision.

9. The facts that the tenant is a doctor, who has been occupying the building from 1955, that the monthly rent was Rs. 45 initially and that the tenant was paying the rent in lump-sum from the inception are evident from Exhibits B-l to B-31 and the said fact has been considered by both the Courts below. The husband of the landlady is a teacher employed at Shencottah and both of them have been residing at Shencottah. P.W. 1 does not dispute the fact that the lump sum payment of rent by the tenant, who is a doctor was receiv