ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of eviction passed as against the revision petitioner/tenant in R.C.A.No.89 of 1991. Sub Court, Madurai, reversing the order of the Rent Controller, Madurai, in E.C.O.P.No. 128 of 1984.

2. The respondents have prayed for eviction of the tenant contending that the premises was taken on lease by the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.35. The petitioner was always irregular in payment of rent and a notice was sent on 9.12.1997 pointing out the wilful nature of the default in payment of rent. Rents were being sent by money orders. He was unable to take proceedings as he was employed out of Madurai Town. Earlier, a sum of Rs.210 was sent claiming to be the rent due for the period March, 1981 to April, 1982. After the said payment, he did not pay any amount. Therefore, rents from April, 1982 to the end of January, 1984 namely, for a period of 22 months. A notice dated 9.1.1984 was sent terminating the tenancy which was received by the tenant on 11.1.1984. A reply dated 1.2.1984 was sent with a cheque for Rs.735 which also did not represent the correct amount due as on that date since as on that date, a sum of Rs.820 was due. A rejoinder was sent accepting the cheque under protest and also stating that balance amounts were due. The rejoinder was received by the tenant on 11.2.1984. A false reply was sent stating that the tenant had been asked to retain the rents as savings. Hence, petition for eviction.

3 In the counter, tenant contended that he was regular in payment of rent which was paid as and when the petitioner came for collection of rent. The tiled roof which requires to be replaced once in two years, was not repaired for the past 10 years. The tenant was instructed by the landlord to retain the rent as savings for the purpose of carrying out the repairs. Believing the said representation, the rent was retained with him. But the landlord had suddenly sent the notice. In fact, it was the petitioner who did not come for collection of the rents. Since notice was received a sum of Rs.735 was sent by a Cheque. There was no wilful default in the payment of rent.

4. On a consideration of the said contentions and the evidence, the Rent Controller held that there was evidence to show that the landlord was frequently going out of station and hence it was not possible for the tenant to pay the rent regularly. With the result, the petition for eviction was dismissed. The Appellate Authority did not agree with the said findings and held that the conduct of the tenant revealed that he had willfully defaulted in payment of rent and there was no basis for the contention that he was instructed to keep the rent with him for carrying out the repairs. Even when the appeal was taken up for hearing, the tenant was found to be in default of Rs.1,025 towards rental arrears. With the result, the appeal was allowed and eviction was ordered.

5. Learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner contends that immediately after the receipt of the notice, the entire dues have been paid and hence the R.C.O.P. was not maintainable in terms of the judgment of this Court in Ramachandran v. Krishnaraj, (1996)2 C.T.C. 130 and Abdul Hameed v. M.Sultan Abdul Kader, (1996)2 M.L.J. 579: (1996)2 L.W. 525. AR.Lakshmanan, J. as he then was, held in the former judgment that when the tenant had sent the arrears of rent even before the receipt of summons in the eviction petition, no order of eviction could be passed. In the latter judgment, the learned Judge held that when the payment of the arrears was made on the first hearing date in the petition before the Rent Controller, there was no default in the payment of rent. Inasmuch as I felt that the statement of law as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner requires a detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Act in the context of the decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court, and also that since in a number of revisions before this Court, the same point was rais

Click Here to Read the rest of this document