.1. The deceased respondent/landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 83 of 1987 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif, Ootacamund against the petitioner/tenant on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and for his occupation, and also for additional accommodation, with respect to the premises in question. That was resisted by the tenant by filing a counter. The Rent Controller in the order dated 4. 1989 ordered eviction on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the requirement of the landlord for additional accommodation is a bona fide one. On the basis of the abovesaid findings the Rent Controller ordered eviction. Aggrieved, the tenant filed appeal in R.C.A. No. 28 of 1989 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/District Judge, The Nilgiris at Ootacamund, who also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction and dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the tenant has filed the above revision.

2. Admittedly, the monthly rent was Rs.20 per month. According to the landlord, the tenant did not pay the rent for the period from 4. 1986 to 30.9.1987.According to the tenant in the R.C.O.P., for the months of April and May, he paid the rent which was admitted by the landlord also. The Petitioner/tenant on the basis of Exs.B-1 and B-2 has come forward with the plea that he had paid the sum of Rs.80 towards four months rent. So, according to the tenant, the landlord received the rent for six months from 4. 1986, and the balance amount was paid on the date of first hearing of the case, which was also admitted by the landlord in his evidence. On the basis of the abovesaid admitted facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decisions in Krishna Mudaliar, v. Lakshmi Ammal , 1996 (2) L.W. 467 (S.C.), and in Abdul Hammed v. M. Sultan Abdul Kader , 1996 (2) L.W. 525, has submitted that the contention that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent cannot be sustained.

3. In answering to the abovesaid submission, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord has submitted that merely because the tenant had deposited the entire amount on the date of first hearing of the R.C.O.P., it can be said that the wilful default committed already by the tenant can be absolved, and thereby the tenant can escape from the order of eviction . According to the learned counsel, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be relied on to the facts of the present case.

.4. In the present case, after the purchase of the premises by the respondent on 23. .1986 he issued the notice under Ex.A-1 dated 4. 1986 asking the tenant to pay the rent. But, till 30.9.1987, admittedly, except for the six months, the tenant did not pay the rent till the date of filing of the R.C.O.P., and deposited the same on the date of the first hearing of the R.C.O.P. Moreover, the tenant in the R.C.O.P. has not given any valid explanation for non-payment of the said rent, except saying that he sent the rent by money order but it was refused. It is well settled that merely an attempt to send the rent by money order and thereafter if the tenant kept quiet, it cannot be said that the tenant has not committed wilful default in payment of rent. Admittedly, the tenant has not taken any steps under Section 8 of the Act. The authorities below have also taken into consideration of the explanation given by the landlord for refusing to receive the rent sent by the tenant. In view of the above, the findings of the authorities below holding that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of the rent cannot be interfered with.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the proviso to Section 10(2)(i) of the Act in support of his submission, which runs as follows:-

“Provided that in any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that t