ORDER: The tenant who lost before the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner herein. The respondent filed R.C.O.P. for eviction under Secs.10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Act 18 of 1960.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petition mentioned building belongs to the petitioner. The respondent is the tenant on monthly rent of Rs.500. The respondent paid rent upto the end of December, 1990 and thereafter, he has wilfully defaulted to pay the rent inspite of repeated demands. The respondent is in arrears of rent from January, 1991 to 1992 for seventeen months to the tune of Rs.8,500. Further, the petition mentioned building is required for immediate purpose of demolition and to erect a new building on the site. The building is an old one. It requires immediate demolition. Besides, the petitioner wants to argument the income by putting up a new building. The petitioner undertake that the work of demolishing of the building will be commenced not later than one month an shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date she recovers the possession of the entire building. Therefore, this petition is filed directing the respondent to vacate the petition mentioned building.

3. The case of the respondent is as follows:

The petition is not maintainable; neither the petitioner nor his agent was demanding the rent. In fact, the petition mentioned building is situate at the end of her building, only after crossing five buildings, the respondent would be able to reach his building. The respondent requested the petitioner to keep vacant of the pathway for free access. The petitioner did not do so. Originally, the rent was Rs.180 which has been raised to Rs.360 and then to Rs.500. The respondent has paid the 4entire rent to the petitioner agent. The petitioner agent was dragging the tenant. The claim of vacant possession by the petitioner is not bona fide. The landlady is not going to demolish the building. The petitioner issued a notice on 8.9.1991 and has filed R.C.O.P. only in the month of June, 1992. If the petition mentioned building is to be demolished for new construction, the equal aged other shop also requires same treatment. In fact, the petitioner was demanding the enhanced rent from all the tenants.

4. Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner’s agent and the respondent were examined and document Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller has given a finding that the respondent- tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent; but the Rent Controller did not accept the case of the petitioner that she requires the building for immediate demolition and reconstruction and therefore the eviction petition on the above ground, was not allowed. Ultimately, the Rent Controller has passed an order for eviction of the tenant from the premises by giving one month time. Aggrieved by the said order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No.9 of 1995. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said findings of the Appellate Authority, the tenant has filed this revision.

5. The following contentions are raised by the tenant in the revision. The lower Appellate Authority has not discussed the merits and demerits of the evidence and case of the parties. On the other hand, the Appellate Authority haws simply confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. The Courts below failed to note that the landlord was in a habit of receiving the rent in lump sum. The petitioner has been paying the rent, but the agent of the respondent was delaying in issuing the receipts. the meaning of the term “wilful default” has not been properly considered by the Courts below.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent landlord contended that the tenant even after having received the notice issued by the landlord failed to pay the rent and that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document