Failure to pay difference between fair rent and agreed rent would be wilful default.

1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/landlord sought his eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent.

2. The averments made in the petition for eviction are as under:

The rent for the premises was Rs.90 per month originally. The respondent/landlord filed RCOP No./66/1989 before the Rent Controller, Cuddalore, on 211. 1989, for fixation of fair rent. The fair rent was fixed at Rs.155 per monthly with effect from the date of petition. The respondent/landlord filed an appeal against the orders but the revision petitioner/tenant did not prefer any appeal, The petition for eviction was being filed without prejudice to the rights of the respondent to get any enhanced amount of fair rent. The tenant had always been in persistent default in the payment of rent. There was an earlier petition for eviction filed against the tenant on the ground of wilful default and the same was pending before this Court in revision at the time of filing the eviction petition. The tenant had not paid the rent for September and October, 1989. He started depositing the rent at Rs.90 per month from December, 1989. On 19. 1991, the landlord issued a notice apprising the tenant of the fact about his default in the payment of rent and also informing him that he was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.155 per month from 211. 1989 itself. The tenant replied on 10. 1991 denying the default. He did not pay the difference between the rent already paid and the fair rent fixed by the courts as applicable from 211. 1989, As on the date of filing of the petition after giving credit to the payments made by the tenants there was an amount of Rs. 860 payable by the tenant. The non-payment by the tenant was deliberate and contumacious. Inspite of specific notice dt. 19. 1991, he had defaulted to pay the correct rent and therefore liable to be evicted.

.3. The tenant filed a counter to the following effect:

.It was false to say that he had always been persistently defaulting in payment of rent. It was only the landlord, who was harassing him in all possible ways. Earlier eviction was sought on the ground of wilful default. It was dismissed. Appeal by the landlord was also dismissed and the matter was pending in the High Court. Similarly, against the order of the Rent Controller, fixing the fair rent, an appeal was filed which was also dismissed. The landlord illegally disconnected the electricity connection and the tenant had to file RCOP No.61 of 1989 for restoration, which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 4-11.1991 and the appeal by the landlord in RCA No.1/91 was also dismissed on 30.9.1991. The present petition for eviction was yet another attempt by the landlord to harass the tenant. Till the date of order in RCOP No.66 of 1989, the entire rent had been paid or deposited at the contractual rate of Rs.90 per month and eversince the date of the order in the fair rent petition, the tenant had been paying Rs.155 per month. There was no default much less wilful default. So far as the non-payment of the difference between the contractual rent and the fair rent from the date of the petition till the date of the order was concerned, it could not be construed as wilful default and no petition for eviction could be filed for the arrears of the enhanced rent. Again, when the matter is pending in the High Court, a second petition for eviction would not lie. The application was liable to be dismissed.

4. Thelearned Rent Controller found that there was no wilful default and dis-missed the application.

5. However, the Appellate Authority agreed with the contention on behalf of the landlord set aside the order of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction.

6. It is as against this the present C.R.P. has been filed.

.7. Mr. S.K.Rakunathan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the proceedings were initiated by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of alleged default in the payment of d