Tenant's default in paying rent for 13 months amounted to wilful default under the Rent Control Act, tenant's subsequent conduct can be considered in determining whether default was wilful.

1. The tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 2695 of 1993 on the file XII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras, is the revision petitioner.

.2. The landlord filed an application for eviction on the ground that the tenant has defaulted in paying the rent of Rs. 1, 500 per month from 11. 1992 to 30.9.1993. According to landlord, the default is wilful default and therefore liable to be evicted. He also averred that an earlier application was filed for eviction on the ground of payment of rent from 7. 1992 to 310. 1992 and the same is also pending consideration by court.

3. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner, he admitted the rate of rent and he denied the allegation that he neglected to pay the rent from 11. 1992 to 30.9.1993. According to him, there are no arrears and he has not committed any default in payment of rent.

4. The Rent Controller clubbed both the Rent Control Original Petitions viz, R.C.O.P.Nos. 3083 of 1992 and 2695 of 1993 and passed a common order. Evidence consists of P.W.1, the petitioner and D.W.1 the petitioner herein. Documentary evidence of the petitioner consists of Exs. R.1 to R.8, Rent Controller found that R.C.O.P.No. 3083 of 1992 is liable to be dismissed since the rent was tendered even before the eviction petition was filed in view of the non -acceptance of the same by the landlord, But, in regard to R.C.O.P.No. 2695 of 1993, the Rent Controller has found that there is wilful default and the allegation of landlord is true. He found that there is no explanation offered by the tenant in depositing 13 months rent in lumpsum and after initiation of the second proceeding, when no reasons for explaining lumpsum payment, it is ordered for eviction.

5. Though the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 921 of 1995 on the file of VIII Small Causes Court at Madras. The appellate court also did not think of interfering with the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.

6. The concurrent findings of the authority below are assailed in this revision.

.7. Heard both sides. The rent is payable every month is an obligation on the part of the tenant, and it is recognised under the Rent Control Act. The Rent Control Act also provided that every month’s rent will have to be paid on the due date and at any rate within 15 days on which the rent falls due. If no date is fixed, on or before last day of the succeeding month the rent is payable. Thus there is statutory obligation on the part of the tenant to pay the rent punctually. If he default in payment of ren t in due time, he will be a defaulter. It is also declared that mere default is not a wilful default. But, circumstances can be made out to prove that the default committed is wilful and for the said purpose, this Court in various decisions have laid down certain guidelines. Basing on those guidelines we have to consider whether in this case, the default committed by the tenant can be termed as wilful.

8. The first eviction petition was filed alleging that the petitioners have failed to pay monthly rents from 7. 1991 to 310. 1992. The second eviction petition was filed for default in payment of rent from 11. 1992 to 30.9.1993. The first eviction petition was dismissed on the ground that the entire arrears was paid before the eviction petition was filed and that in a lumpsum, when the second application was filed, 13 months rent was deposited in December, 1993. From this conduct, it is clear that the tenant was not in the habit of paying the rent on due dates. By making lumpsum payment, monthly, tenancy is sought to be converted into yearly tenancy.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted, before the eviction petition was filed no notice was issued. The Rent Control Act does not say that before any eviction petition is filed no notice is required. Only, in cases where the court has to presume the wilful default, a notice is contemplated. In other cases, the court can enter a finding taken into consideration the conduct of the tenant to co