Wilful default in payment of rent proved.

The respondent in R.C.O.P. No.70 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the revision petitioner.

.2. The landlady sought eviction of the revision petitioner on two grounds viz., (1) default in payment of rent. It is said that rent for the months of July, 1991 to December, 1991 were defaulted; (2) The building is required bona fide for her own occupation. It is stated that the landlady and her family members are now living in New Delhi and they want to settle at Madras andthe building in question is the only building owned by her at Madras and the landlady and her family members need the building for their own occupation.

3. In the counter statement, both these allegations are denied. The revision petitioner submitted that it had not committed any default, much less wilful default. It has also contended that the present claim is not in good faith and the intention of the landlady is to let out the building for a higher rent.

4. Both the authorities below found against the tenant on both the grounds and both the

Authorities ordered eviction. The tenant was directed to surrender possession.

The concurrent finding of the Authorities below is challenged in this revision petition.

5. Before going into the legal aspect of the matter, certain facts require consideration. The property originally belonged to late Padma Srinivasan and the revision petitioner took the same from her on lease from 7. 1977. The agreed rent was Rs.2,000 per month and Rs.1,000 towards hire charges for fixtures and fittings. The initial lease was for a period of 9 1/2 years. After the expiry of the term of lease, the landlady, Padma Srinivasan, filed an application for fixation of fair rent in R.C.O.P. No.974 of 1991 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. Pending that proceeding, she died on 26. 1991 at New Delhi. The landlady herein was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased.

6. Immediately after the death of Padma Srinivasan, the respondent herein informed the tenant about the death of her mother as per a letter, which the petitioner received on 17. 1991. In that letter, the landlady informed the tenant that she is the sole and only heir of Padma Srinivasan and she was the landlady. She also informed that Padma Srinivasan is dead and wanted the tenant to deposit the rent from July, 1991 onwards in her bank account with the Hongkong Bank, Rajaji Salai, Madras.

.7. It is the case of the landlady that even though such a letter was sent and received by the tenant, they refused to pay the rent and continued to deposit the amount in the accounts of the deceased original owner, which is not ‘payment’ to the landlady. Since the amount is deposited in dead person’s account, the same also could not be collected. The case that is further put forward is that the tenant knew that she was the sole heir and that she was impleaded as the legal heir of the deceased Padma Srinivasan in R.C.O.P. No.974 of 1991. Even after she was made party to the proceeding, it did not agree to pay the rent in her account. This attitude of the tenant, according to the landlady, has only to be characterised as wilful default, the consequence of which is to direct eviction of the tenant from the building.

8. The tenant, which is a Public Limited Company, has taken a contention admitting the receipt of Ex.A-1 letter. But, it is its case that being a public limited company, it has to comply with certain legal formalities for remitting the rent in the account of the landlady. The mere asking by a parry that she is the owner is not sufficient and the same has to be substantiated and only then the rent could be tendered in her favour. Only after compliance with the formalities, the rent could be credited to the account of the landlady. It is further stated that immediately after the respondent herein was recorded as the legal representative in the fair rent application, the tenant also recognised her as the landlady and the amo