Landlady having accepted rent there was no cause of action on date of filing of petition.

Landlady in R.C.O.P.No.44 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif, Salem is the revision petitioner herein.

2. Landlady, claimed eviction on the ground that tenant has committed wilful default in paying rent and the building is required for her own occupation, i.e., for the occupation of her husband and sons for their business. Scheduled building is admittedly a non-residential building.

3. Material averments necessary for the disposal of the revision petition could be summarised thus:

Monthly rent payable by tenant is Rs.450 and it is admitted by both sides that the tenancy is according to English calendar month. According to petitioner, tenant refused to pay rent from 12. 1991 onwards and the refusal amounts to supine indifference and callousness. Eviction petition was filed on 14. 1992 and the rent arrears are from December, 1991 till March, 1992. Petitioner sent a notice on 23. 1992 for which a reply was sent on 4. 1992. Along with the reply a pay order for Rs.1,800 was also sent representing four months rent. The same was returned to tenant. In the reply notice, tenant has said that the rent for the month of December, 1991, January and February 1992, rents have been paid to petitioners son K.L.Rameshkumar who promised to get receipt. He did not obtain receipt and therefore to avoid any misunderstanding tenant sent Rs.1,800 to the counsel. When the same was returned, tenant again took a demand draft for Rs.1,800 and the same was sent to landlady directly. Same was accepted by landlady on 4. 1992. According to landlady, she has received the same without prejudice to her right to initiate eviction proceedings. It is also averred that her husband and sons are doing business in manufacturing and sale of Silver jewellery and for the said purpose they had to travel throughout India and they are getting orders from various places. In view of interruption by the customs authorities in their business, they have decided to stop touring business and confine their activities at Salem for which they need scheduled building for their occupation. According to landlady, husband and sons are not owning any non-residential place and her claim is bona fide.

4. Serious objection was raised by tenant. According to him, he cannot be termed as wilful defaulter and petitioner has no cause of action to get eviction when the entire amount has been paid and accepted by landlady before filing eviction petition. The contention is that landlady has not cause of action to evict tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. In regard to the claim of eviction for own occupation, a contention was taken that landlady is in possession of other buildings and they are owning other properties at Sevapet which are not residential and the same have been leased out to third parties. Tenant contended that the claim of landlady is not bona fide and wanted the petition to be dismissed.

5. On the above pleadings, Rent Controller took oral and documentary evidence and as per order dated 8. 1995 allowed the application on both the grounds. For the said purpose Rent Controller relied on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are father and son and also Exs.A-1 to A-16. Tenant has adduced only oral evidence and he got examined himself as D.W.1.

6. Eviction was ordered and tenant was ordered to surrender vacant possession within three months time. Aggrieved by the said order tenant filed R.C.A.No.17 of 1995 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Salem. Appellate Authority held that when landlord received the entire rent before eviction petition was filed, there is no cause of action. Consequently, landlady cannot claim eviction on the ground of wilful default.

7. With regard to the claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide own use, appellate authority held that main reason for filing eviction petition was that landladys husband and sons are being harassed by police from North India since they are causing obstruc