No wilful default on the party of tenant proved.

1. The unsuccessful tenant has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority Madurai inR.C.A. No. 127of 1992.

2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also for own use and occupation. The tenant was in arrears from September, 1982. When the landlord intended to sell the building in question, the tenant never allowed him to do so and the demised property is required for his own use and occupation as he has no other building. The tenant, however, resisted the application for eviction and contended that he has paid the rent regularly upto May, 1984 and he had also entered into an agreement of sale with the landlord on June, 1984. Ever since June, 1984. there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and, as such, the present application is not maintainable under law. The request of own use and occupation is also not true. There is absolutely no arrears of rent on and from June, 1984 since he is occupying the property in part performance of the agreement of sale. The landlord agreed to convey the property for a sum of Rs. 57, 500 and he paid a sum of Rs. 10, 000 even on the date of agreement and subsequently another sum of Rs.20, 000 was also paid on 13. 86 and endorsement under Ex.B.3 was also taken.

3. On behalf of the petitioner/landlord Exs.A.1 to A9 were marked and P.W.1 was examined. On the side of the respondent/tenant Exs.B1 to B 13 were marked and D.W.1 was examined. The trial Court allowed the application filed by the landlord and aggrieved against this, the tenant preferred R.C.A. 127 of 1992 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Madurai and that court upheld the order of eviction only on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and so far as the own use and occupation, the order of the trial court was set aside. Aggrieved against this, the tenant has come forward with the present revision petition.

.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the landlord is a purchaser of the property after the tenants induction and the rent at the time was only Rs.40 per month. There was no subsequent lease agreement between the parties with regard to the rent and, therefore, the alleged rent of Rs.400 per month is not correct. The landlord is always in the habit of buying and selling the properties. The Appellate Authority erred in fixing the monthly rent at 400 per month without any evidence. When there is a sale agreement, non-payment of rent would not amount to wilful default as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rakapalli Raja R.G. Rao., v. Naragani G. Sekararao 1990(I) L.W. 558. Further more, the tenant has deposited the rent upto November, 1996 into the court and, as such, there is no arrears at all. There was no default on his part, much less, wilful default. Towards the sale consideration of Rs.57, 500, the tenant had paid Rs.30, 000 and, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either parties.

6. The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord? (2) Whether the eviction order passed by the authorities below is proper and correct? and (3) To what relief?

7. Points: It is admitted that the revision petitioner is a tenant of the premises in question, even prior to the purchase by the landlord. The present landlord purchased the property from the erstwhile owner on 25. 82 and according to the landlord, the tenant is in arrears from September, 1982 and the premises is also required for his own use and occupation. Although the Rent Controller allowed the application on both the grounds, the Appellate Authority ordered eviction only on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and set aside in respect of the other ground viz., own use and occupatio