Extraneous matter may not be considered.

M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.

1. C.R.P. No. 2039 of 1982 has been filed by the landlady and C.R.P. No. 371 of 1982 has been filed by the tenant against the orders of the appellate authorities in different appeals filed by the landlady and tenant as against the common order passed by the Rent Controller in H. R. C. No. 2541 of 1979.

2. The landlady, who is the revision petitioner in C.R.P. No. 2039 of 1982 and respondent in C. R P. No. 371 of 1982 filed the eviction petition on three grounds; viz., wilful default in the payment of rent under Section 10(2) (i), acts of waste to the building under Section 10(2) (iii) and requirement of the premises for the landlady's partnership business order Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVIII of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

3. The learned Rent Controller gave finding on the first two grounds against the landlady, but found the third ground, viz., the requirement of the building for the landlady's partnership business, in favour of the landlady and ultimately passed an order of eviction. As against the order of eviction, the tenant filed H R. A. No. 410 of 1981 on the filed of the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras, where as the landlady filed H. R. A, No. 409 of 1981 on the file of the IV Judge, Court .of Small Causes at Madras as against the adverse findings on the other two grounds. The appeal filed by the landlady on the ground of wilful default was allowed by the IV Judge of Court of Small Causes who held that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent and the appeal filed by the tenant was allowed by the VI Judge of Court Small Causes, Madras. Hence these revision petitions, both by the tenant and the landlady.

4. So far as C.R.P. No. 371 of 1982 is concerned, the contention of the revision petitioner, who is the tenant, is that the landlady used to allow the rent to be accumulated and collect the same afterwards, that after the refusal of the tenant to pay the enhanced rate of rent demanded by the landlady, the landlady did not send her representative for collecting the rents and hence the rents due from May 1979 to July 1979 could not be paid and that the accumulated rents were paid immediately after the receipt of notice under Exhibit P-36 from the landlady along with the reply notice sent under Exhibit P-38.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant has cited the case reported in Ramaswamy Pathar v. Thiagaraja Chettiar (1982) 95 L.W. 444, and another case reported in Chithirai Vadivu Ammal v. Dr. Moses T. Sunder (1982) T. L.N.J. 57, rendered by me in support of the contention that the default committed by the tenant cannot be deemed to be wilful as the landlady used to allow the rents to be accumulated. On the other hand, it is contended on the side of the respondent herein, viz, landlady, that only on one prior occasion when the tenant committed default in the payment of renta for February, March and April, 1977, the landlady condoned the delay and received the rent on 17th June, 1977, that such condoning of the delay in the payment of rent on a single occasion cannot be taken advantage of by the tenant, that on no other occasion the landlady received accumulated rents, that the tenant did not make any whisper in the reply notice given under Exhibit P-31 that because the tenant refused to pay the enhanced rate of rent, when demanded by the landlady, the landlady did not send her representative demanding the rent and that, therefore, it is only as an after-thought in the eviction petition such a ground has been invented. It is further contended that if really the belated acceptance of rent as urged by the tenant in the counder was true, the tenant would have sent the rents for May, 1979 to July, 1979, either by Money Order or would have deposited the rent amount in any bank as contemplated by the provisions contained under Section 8(2) of Act XVII of 1960, instead of waiting for the recei