Rent paid by tenant within the time given in notice be landlord.

C.R.P.No.3283 of 1987 is directed against the order passed in R.C. A.No.95 of 1985 which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1981. C.R.P.No.3284 of 1987 is directed against the order passed in R.C.A.No.96 of 1985 which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 1981. The tenants are the petitioners herein. The landlord filed petitions for eviction against both the tenants under Sec.l0(2)(i) and Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the landlord, the tenant in C.R.P.No.3283 of 1987 committed wilful default in payment of rent upto 312. 1980 for a period of 11 months at the rate of Rs.85 per mensem amounting to Rs.1,020 and therefore he is liable to be evicted under Sec.l0(2)(i) of the Act. So also the tenant in C.R.P.No.3284 of 1987 committed wilful default in payment of rent upto 312. 1980 for a period of 11 months at the rate of Rs.55 per mensem amounting to Rs.660. Therefore, he is also liable to be evicted under Sec.l0(2)(i) of the Act. According to the landlord the tenants filed petitions under Sec.8(5) of the Act to deposit the rent in court. The Rent Control court directed the tenants to deposit the rent in court. Inspite of the said order passed by the Rent Controller, the tenants failed and neglected to deposit the rent for the period of the abovesaid 11 months. Hence, according to the landlord, they have committed wilful default in payment of rent. The landlord also sent a notice on 111. 1980 with regard to the tenant relating to C.R.P.No.3283 of 1987. The tenant sent a reply on 111. 1980. The tenant also sent a further reply on 27.,11.1980. Along with the said reply, the tenant sent a cheque for Rs.1,020. But the landlord refused to receive the same. According to the landlord since the tenant failed to deposit the rent as directed by the court for a period of 11 months, he is liable to be evicted under Sec.l0(2)

(i) of the Act. In the case of tenant in C.R.P.No.3284 of 1987 is concerned, the landlord sent a notice on 111. 1980 and the tenant sent a reply on 111. 1980 and along with the reply, the tenant sent a cheque for Rs.550. The landlord refused to receive the same. According to the landlord, inasmuch as the tenant failed to deposit the rent as per the earlier direction of the Rent Controller, he committed wilful default in payment of rent and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under Sec.l0(2)(i) of the Act. The landlord also required the petition premises bona fide for demolition and reconstruction under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act. Since according to the landlord, the building is in a dilapidated condition. According to the landlord, he is having sufficient means to demolish the existing building and to put up a new superstructure. The landlord also obtained a sanctioned plan from Municipality for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, according to the landlord, the requirement of the petition premises under Sec.l4(l)(b) of the Act is bona fide.

2. The tenants filed counters stating that they have sent the arrears of rent by way of cheques along with their reply notices within the time stipulated in the notices sent to them. Therefore, they have not committed any wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord. According to the tenants, they were directed to deposit the rent in court by the Rent Controller as per the order passed under Sec.8(5) of the Act. They are entrusting the rent to their advocates but their advocates failed to deposit the same in court. Hence, it was submitted that there is no wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord. The tenants further submitted that the landlord failed to establish the condition of the building. The landlord also failed to show that he is having any means to put up the new superstructure. The building is not an old one as submitted by the landlord. It was therefore s