Conduct of tenant held, as wilful default.

When the stay petition was listed, the main C.R.P., itself had been taken up for final disposal, since the short question involved is whether the petitioner has committed any wilful default in paying the rent. The respondent herein is the landlord of the petition premises. He filed R.C.O.P.No.2418 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller. Madras to evict the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default, since he has failed to pay the rent from December, 1987 to June, 1988. The petitioner filed a counter stating that he had not committed any wilful default and that since the respondent failed to pay the property tax, the Corporation Officials insisted that the petitioner should pay the tax. Without paying the tax, he had deposited the rent in the bank. The Rent Controller by his order dated 26. 1993 allowed the petition for eviction finding that the respondent has not produced any document to establish his defence of depositing the rents in the bank. Further as there is no obligation on the part of the tenant to pay the Corporation Tax, the petitioner ought not to have retained the money to pay the tax and as such the non-payment of the rent by the petitioner is wilful. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred an appeal R.C.A.No.904 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The appellate authority concurred with the finding of the Rent Control and dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 7. 1997. The present revision has been filed against the said order.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not commit any wilful default because the usual practice adopted by the tenant is to pay the rent in lumpsum as and when the landlord ask for the rent. Admittedly the rents have not been paid regularly even during the pendency of the proceedings since the landlord has not asked for the same. In fact the petitioner had sent a draft for a sum of Rs.19,500 dated 15. 1997 representing the arrears of rent up to 1st May, 1997 and the draft has not been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent or to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that it is the mistake on his part and he requested further time to pay the arrears up-to-date.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent however contended that R.C.O.P. has been filed on the ground of wilful default and as such the tenant ought to have shown some bona fide not only in paying the arrears of rent, but also in paying the rent regularly during the subsistence of the proceedings. During the pendency of the R.C.O.P. as well as the R.C.A. petitions have been filed under Sec. 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act and the petitioner was compelled to pay the arrears. Hence by the conduct of the petitioner, it is clearly established that he has committed wilful default, especially when this Court is entitled to take note of the conduct of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings.

4. I carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel.

5. At the outset, I would state that there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. The plea of the petitioner that he had been paying the rent in lumpsum cannot be accepted. The lower appellate court has categorically found that such a plea had not been raised in the counter filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller. The explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in payment of rent is only an after thought. Further as already stated, the rents have been paid only at the instance of the court’s order during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner though addressed a letter to the respondent dated 15. 1997 enclosing the draft for Rs. 19,500 it is not clear as to why he has forwarded the same to his counsel. The petitioner’s counsel has addressed a letter to the respondent’s counsel dated 17. 1997 stating that he is e