Appeal and revision against order of Rent Controller dismissed.

Srinivasan, J.

1. The revision petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent order of eviction made by the authorities below on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for own occupation for he purpose of business by the landlady.

2. As regards the wilful default, the averment of the landlady is that, the tenant is in arrears for a period of 17 months from 1.6.1979 to the end of October, 1980. The petition was filed in November, 1980. As regards the requirement for own business, the averment of the landlady is that a Syrup business is carried on in a rented shop in Madurai by her sons and that she required the petition building for the purpose of that business.

3. While admitting that the rent was in arrears for a period of 17 months, the case put forward by the tenant in the counter-statement is as follows: "The petitioner used to collect the rent once in twp or three to four months as and when it suits her convenience. Prior to the issue of registered lawyer notice for some time the petitioner was not accepting the rent as she has been insisting upon the rent being enhanced to a sum of Rs. 200 per month. As this respondent refused, she caused to send a registered notice. Immediately this tenant has sent suitable reply and also, a draft for Rs. 1,200. Subsequently, the rent has been sent by money order regularly till 15.11.1979. This tenant is doing book binding business. On account of rise in prices for raw-materials the book binding business was every much affected in 1980. Further this tenant's health was also affected and he had continuous chest pain, body-ache, for ' which he had treatment in Government hospital and also he had benefits of E.S.I. Hospital, that is why the rent could not be paid in time. All the rents are now being arranged to be paid as there is no improvement in his business".

4. As regards the other ground, the tenant filed an additional statement of objection before the Rent Controller in which he had denied the bona fide requirement of the landlady. He had taken a plea that the landlady had other buildings which fell vacant and they were not occupied by her at the time when the petition was filed.

5. The Courts below have accepted the evidence of the landlady and held that the requirement for her own business is bona fide. On the question or wilful default, the Courts below have relied upon the conduct of the tenant both prior to the filing of the petition and after the filing of the petition and come to the conclusion that the default is wilful.

6. It is contended vehemently by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the authorities below were in error in relying upon the circumstances that the tenant had paid the rent only after the filing of the petition under Section 11(4) of the Act by the landlady. Learned Counsel draws my attention to the documentary evidence filed by the tenant and alleges that the various documents filed by him proved that the rent has always been paid only in lumpsums once in few months and therefore the continuous course of conduct of the landlady was to accept the rent in lumpsums once in few months. Learned Counsel places reliance on decisions of this Court in Khivraj Chordia v. G. Maniklal Bhattad reported in A.I.R. 1966 Mad. 67 : I.L.R. (1966) 1 Mad. 451 : 78 L.W. 522. According to learned Counsel, the facts of the present case will be covered by the following observation made by the learned Judge Ramamurti J., in that case. (Page 72)

Keeping in mind the main object of the enactment, namely, prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants, the principle that emerges from the several decisions is that for default to be regarded as wilful default, the conduct of the tenant should by such as to lend to the inference that his omission was a conscious violation of his obligation to pay the rent or reckless indifference. If the default was due to accident or inadvertence or erroneous or false sense of security based upon the conduct of the landlord himse