Case beyond scope of wilful default.

1. These revisions have been filed by the defeated tenantsagainst the order of eviction passed against them and against the order confirming the decision of the Rent Controller dismissing theirapplication under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

.2. The facts leading to the revision petition are as under:

.The revision petitioner became tenants under one Ameenudeen Sahib on a monthly rent of Rs.200 in respect of the property subject matter of the proceedings. They paid rent regularly upto June, 1994. On 30.7.1994 under Ex.P.1 the respondent Villayudham caused a notice to be issued to them stating that he had purchased the property from Ameenudeen Sahib on 16. 1994 and requesting them to pay the rent to him. A reply was sent on behalf of the revision petitioners stating that their erstwhile landlord had not informed them about the sale and a copy of the sale deed was required by them. This was followed by a further reply under Ex.P.2 dated 18. 1994 stating that they were willing to pay the rent to the respondent after a copy of the sale deed as required by them was sent to them. Thereafter, the original owner, viz, Ameenudeen Sahib sent a letter dated 29. 1994 informing the revision petitioners about the sale of the property to the respondent. However, in the meantime, Ameenudeen Sahib received the re nt for June and July, 1994 as evidenced by Exs.R.3 and R.4 respectively. The rent for August, 1994 was sent to the respondent in C.R.P.No.825of 1997 under Ex.R-7 dated 29. 1994, but the same was returned with an endorsement “refused". They again sent rent for August and September, 1994 under Ex.R-8 on 10. 1994. It was also returned with an endorsement “refused". Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed a petition purporting to be under section 9 of the Act by filing an application for deposit of re nt before the Court in R.C.O.P.No.28 of 1994. While the said application for deposit was pending, the respondent in C.R.P.No.825 of 1997 filed an application in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 1995 for eviction on the ground of wilful default and personal occupation. His case was that the revision petitioners committed default in the payment of rent for 8 1/2 months, i.e. from 16. 1994 upto February, 1995. His further case was that he was running a marine spare parts shop and that he required the premises in question for his personal business.

.3. The petitioners resisted the application filed by the presentowner, viz. the respondent in C.R.P.No.825 of 1997 contending that there was no wilful default, that they were informed about the sale only by the end of September, 1994, that the respondent had refusedto receive the rent for no tenable reason and that the sale havingcome to their notice only on 30.9.1994, there was no justification for demanding the rent for June and July, 1994 from the petitioners,particularly when they had paid the rent for June and July, 1994 to the original landlord. It was their contention that there was no default much less wilful default. They also contended that the requirement of the respondent for personal occupation lacked bona fides.

4. The learned Rent Controller ordered the application for eviction and dismissed the application for deposit of rent. The revision petitioners filed appeals in R.C.A.Nos.9 of 1996 and 11 of 1996 and the Appellate Authority having confirmed the orders passed by theRent Controller, the present revision petitions have been filed.

5. Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the authorities below clearly erred in rejecting the application for deposit of rent filed by the revision petitioners merely on the ground that a wrong provision of law had been quoted. He further contended that there was a stipulation in the agreement between the petitioners and the erstwhile owner, that in case the rent was not paid on or before the 10th of