Extent of interference by revisional authority.

M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent landlord filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1981 for eviction of the tenant under Sections 10(2) and 14(i) of the Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960 on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent from December, 1979 till date of petition for 14 months and for requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that the building is an old one. The tenant resisted the petition on the grounds that the landlord had sent a notice on 10th October, 1973, asking the tenant to vacate the demised building for the personal occupation of the landlord, that the tenant sent a reply denying the alleged requirement of the landlord at that time, that on 9th January, 1975, the landlord sent another notice asking the tenant to vacate the building on the ground that the building required renovation, that the tenant sent a reply denying the bona fides of the alleged requirement for renovation, that in 1978 the landlord filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1978 for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent, that the said eviction petition as well as the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the landlord were dismissed, that the tenant was paying the rent regularly, that after the dismissal of the civil miscellaneous appeal, the tenant sent three months' rent due for December, 1979 to February, 1980 by money order as the landlord refused to receive the rent after the dismissal of C.M.A. No. 6 of 1979, that the landlord refused to receive the amounts sent by money order and that thereafter the landlord has chosen to file H.R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1978 for eviction on the ground of wilful default and that the tenant had deposited the entire arrears of rent immediately after the petition was filed and the landlord also has received the same from the Court.

2. The learned Rent Controller has, after examining the landlord and the tenant as well as the Commissioner, gave the findings on the question of wilful default that the tenant has not committed any wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent and on the question of requirement for demolition and reconstruction that the requirement is not a bona fide requirement, since the landlord is actuated by mala fide intention of throwing out the tenant. On such findings, the eviction petition has been dismissed without costs.

3. On appeal to the Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Padmanabhapuram), the learned appellate authority has differed from the Rent Controller and gave the finding that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of arrears of rent and that the requirement of the building is a bona fide requirement. Hence this revision Petition.

4. On the question of wilful default, the learned Rent Controller has written a well-considered order taking into consideration the prior proceedings taken by the landlord for evicting the tenant and the subsequent conduct of the landlord in refusing to receive the money order sent by the tenant for three months after the dismissal of the landlord's C.M.A. No. 6 of 1979 on 26th June, 1979. Exs. B. 1 and B-2 are the previous notices dated 10th October, 1973, and 9th January, 1975, sent by the landlord to the tenant. In Ex. B-1 the reason given for asking the tenant to vacate the building is the requirement for personal occupation. The reason given in the second notice, namely, Ex. B-2 dated 9th January ,1975, is that the building was required for renovation. On both the grounds, an eviction petition was filed by the landlord. On the other hand, Ex. B-3 the certified copy of the order dated 27th January, 1979, in H.R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 1978 discloses that the eviction petition was filed on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that there was no wilful default in the payment rent and the appeal filed by the landlord in C.M.A. No. 6 of 1979 was also dismissed.

5. It is seen from Ex. A-3 the certifi