ORDER: The tenant is the revision petitioner who has been evicted on the grounds of wilful default. The Rent Controller and the appellate authority confirmed the findings of wilful default.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner attacked the order of eviction on the following grounds:

(a) A notice had been issued claiming the rental arrears and therefore, the landlord must wait for the expiry of the two month period before initiating proceedings of eviction on the ground of wilful default. In this case, the petition for eviction has been filed before the expiry of two months and therefore, the Rent Control Petition must stand dismissed as per the decision in Raja Muthukone v. T.Gopalasami, (2002)2 M.L.J. 150 (S.C.): (2002)4 S.C.C. 204.

(b) The landlord who seeks eviction on the ground of wilful default should prove the intention to commit default with full knowledge of the legal consequences as laid down in Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman, (1985)1 S.C.C. 591 and when the landlord who had admitted in his evidence that he had the counterfoils for the receipts, did not produced them, thereby withholding the best evidence. The ground of wilful default must be rejected.

(c) When there is a bona fide dispute regarding the quantum of rent, the proviso to Sub-sec.(2) to Sec.10 would come into play. Sometime ought to have been given by the Rent Controller for payment of the dues and the existence of a bona fide dispute would itself negate the deliberate intention to commit default. For this purpose, he relied on Punnoose v. Munneruddin, (2003)3 M.L.J. 138 (S.C.).

(d) When the tenant had come-forward with a case that the landlord was not in the habit of issuing receipts, the Rent Controller ought not have called upon the tenant to prove the negative, on the other hand, should have drawn an adverse inference from the non-production of the counterfoils by the landlord, which the land-lord admittedly possessed.

(e) The tenant had in the course of his evidence admitted that the payment of rent would be reflected in their Account Books and even now, the tenant is ready to produce his evidence. The accounts are in Hindi and they are available and therefore, an opportunity should be given by sending the matter back to the appellate authority for receiving the additional evidence to prove that there is no wilful default.

(f) The appellate authority had failed to discharge its obligations as the final Court of fact and had merely contented itself with discussing the decisions and blindly confirming the Rent Controller’s order.

(g) Both the Rent Control Authority and the Appellate Authority had erroneously placed undue reliance on the fact that after the petition was filed the tenant had paid the rent not every month but in lumpsum. This was hardly relevant for the purpose of deciding the matter.

3. The learned counsel for the caveator on the other hand would submit that,

(a) It is for the tenant to prove that he had paid the rents in an application for eviction on the ground of wilful default. It is the tenant’s duty to obtain receipts and Sec.8 provides protection to a tenant against a landlord who refuses to issue receipts and therefore, the tenant cannot call upon the landlord to produce documents to show the rents were not paid.

(b) The landlord would be required to give two months only if the notice is given as per the explanation to Sec.10(2)(i). If no notice is given by the landlord in terms of the Explanation then the Controller would have the discretion to examine the question whether the default was wilful or not. In the present case, when no time was stipulated in the notice, there was no necessity to wait for two months time and therefore, the R.C.O.P. was not premature. For this purpose reliance was placed on K.L.Suganthi v. T.Sambalingam, (1999)1 M.L.J. 31.

(c) When the landlord refuses to issue receipt the tenant must follow the procedure prescribed under Sec.8 and cannot take refuge under the fact that since the landlord did not prod

Click Here to Read the rest of this document