ORDER: The landlady is the revision petitioner. The landlady, who succeeded before the Rent Controller, but lost before the Appellate Authority, has filed this revision petition.

2. The case of the petitioner in the R.C.O.P. is as follows:

The petition mentioned property belongs to the petitioner. Santhanam Pillai, the father of the respondents, became a tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.12. After the death of Santhanam Pillai, his sons, the respondents, are residing in the petition mentioned property. The respondents were irregular in the payment of rent. The respondent have paid the rent up to Chittirai Rathakshi year. From Vaikasi, the respondents have not paid the rent and have committed wilful default in the payment of rent. The respondents have defaulted to pay ten months rent i.e., Rs.120. The petitioner issued a notice to the second respondent on 25.1.1985 and the same was returned. Therefore, this petition is filed under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) 18 of 1960 (in short “the Act”).

3. The case of the respondents is as follows:

The first respondent is the younger brother of the second respondent. The respondents had been regularly paying the rent. The petitioner had been demanding enhanced rent from the first respondent and she had been evading to receive the rent whenever tendered in person. The second respondent is not employed at Madurai, but is working elsewhere. The first respondent had been sending the rent by money order. Later on dispute arose in the family of the petitioner. The petitioner’s son, who is unfortunately handicapped, demanded the rent from this respondent. But the petitioner was not amenable for it. Further there was a property dispute between the petitioner’s family on the one side and a third party on the other side. The petitioner had been assuring that all the family disputes would be settled and rents could be paid thereafter. Hence, this respondent did not pay rent to anyone. Even before the date of the first hearing, the respondent deposited the rent into Court. The rent mentioned in the petition was deposited in April, 1985. The date of the first hearing was on 12.6.1985. There is no question of arrears of rent or wilful default. The respondents have not committed any wilful default. Assuming without admitting that there was any default in the payment of rent, the Court may be pleased to invoke the provisions of Sec.10(2)(i) of the Act by granting time to deposit the rent.

4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlady has been examined as P.W.1 and the first respondent has been examined as R.W.1. On the side of the petitioner, Exs.P-1 to P-6 were marked. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller has held that the tenants have committed wilful default in the payment of rent and therefore, allowed the R.C.O.P. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenants preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No.48 of 1994. The Appellate Authority on consideration of the evidence allowed the appeal and consequently, the R.C.O.P. filed by the revision petitioner was dismissed. Aggrieved against the said order, the landlady has filed this revision.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the reasons given by the Rent Controller in ordering eviction and that the Appellate Authority failed to consider that the tenants have come forward with a false explanation for non-payment of rent and that without considering the admission of the tenant in the evidence, the Appellate Authority has held that deposit of rent at the first hearing is sufficient to hold that the tenant has not committed any wilful default and that the above finding of the Appellate Authority is not correct and that the Appellate Authority has failed to see that the subsequent deposit of rent in the Court would not cure wilful default as the tenant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sec.8 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document