Petition for eviction cannot be rejected on the ground that landlord was intending to evict tenant in earlier letter written to tenant.

The petitioners filed an application for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 1990 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Thanjavur under Secs.10(2)(ii), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960). According to the petitioners, the respondent/ tenant committed default for the period from August, 1986 to December, 1990. So, according to them, the tenant, has committed wilful default in payment of rent. The petition was resisted by the tenant by filing a detailed counter. The Rent Controller in his order dated 30.8.1991 rejected the same. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.24 of 1991 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority, Thanjavur. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above revision.

2. It is not in dispute that the tenant has to pay the rent from August, 1986 to December, 1990. The tenant sent Money Order Ex.B-4 dated 11. 1986 for a sum of Rs.20 which was refused by the petitioners. Thereafter, he sent another Money Order under Ex.B-3 dated 12. 1986 for a sum of Rs.57 towards three months rent ending with December, 1986, That was also refused by the petitioners. Thereafter the tenant filed a suit in O.S.No.753 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur seeking a decree for injunction restraining the petitioners from evicting him forcibly. In the said suit in the month of September, 1990, the tenant deposited the arrears towards 46 months rent of a sum of Rs.920 to the credit of O.S.No.753 of 1986. Such a deposit is not disputed.

3. We have to now find out whether there is any supine indifference on the part of the tenant in not paying the rent regularly.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petition was filed on 18. 1990. The date of the first hearing was 28. 1990. The learned counsel has further submitted that merely because the landlords refused to receive the Money Order, the tenant cannot keep quiet without payment the rent regularly. If the Money Order is refused, ‘it is for him to resort to the procedure under Sec.8 of the said Act. In the absence of taking any steps under the said provision, the same amounts to wilful default.

.5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-tenant has submitted that the tenant sent Money Order under Exs.B-3 and B-4. They were refused to be received by the landlords and so the amount was deposited in the bank. Thereafter the said amount was deposited to the credit of O.S.No.753 of 1986. On the basis of the abovesaid fact, the learned counsel has submitted that there is no deliberate intention on the part of the tenant in paying the rent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant has further cited a number of decisions in support of his submission, he has relied on the decision of AR.Lakshmanan, J. in Rajalinga Chettiar v. Nataraja Mudaliar, (1995)2 M.L.J. 211: (1995)1 L. W. 456, wherein the learned Judge has held that non-adoption of procedure prescribed under Sec.8(2) does not throw any light on want of bona fides on the part of the tenant. In the said case, the tenant called upon the landlord to specify a bank so that the rent could be deposited. But the landlord did not do so and so the tenant was regularly depositing the money in the Post Office Savings Bank Account. On the basis of those facts, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that merely because the tenant therein did not take proceedings under Sec.8 of the Act, it cannot be construed as wilful. Even in the decision in K.Mohideen Sahib v. Tehodore Samuel, 1985 T.L.N.J. 178, the facts are similar to the above said decision.

.7. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant has also relied on the decision in Minor Rajakumar, etc. v. N.V.Natarajan, (1994)1 L. W. 340, in support of his submission that de