Explanation for delayed payment of rent given by tenant not satisfactory and acceptable.

The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is the petitioner is this civil revision petition against the concurrent eviction order passed, one by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.1 of 1993 and another by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.21 of 1989.

2. The Rent Controller passed the eviction order on three different grounds, viz., (1) wilful default for a period of 11 months from September, 1988 in the payment of monthly rents.(under Sec.l0(2)(i) of the Act, (2) the respondents landlords bona fide require the petition building for demolition and reconstruction (under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Act, and (3) denial of title of the landlords with reference to the superstructure on the petition-site. (No doubt in the R.C.O.P. the respondents- landlords have not specifically raised this ground of denial of title, but as against the plea of the landlords that both the site and superstructure were leased out to the petitioner, the tenant claimed that only site was leased out to him and the superstructure was his. The Rent Controller held that both the land and the superstructure were together leased out to the petitioner. In this connection only the Rent Controller held that there was denial of title of the respondents in respect of the abovesaid superstructure and that the said denial was held to be not a bona fide one.

3. The appellate authority in the abovesaid appeal filed by the tenant concurred with the Rent Controller on the question of wilful default and bona fide requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction. It no doubt also concurred with the Rent Controller holding that the superstructure also belonged to the landlords and both the land and superstructure were lease out as ‘building’ to the tenant. But, it did not deal with the question whether eviction could be granted on the ground that denial of title was not bona fide.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attacked all the findings of the authorities below. But, I must say that even if I sustain one of the abovesaid three independent findings of the authorities below relating to the above referred to three independent grounds for eviction there is no justification for any interference by me in this revision. Therefore. I shall take up first the question of wilful default. On this point the authorities below pointed out that the petitioner as R.W.1 himself has admitted in cross-examination that at the time when R.C.O.P. was filed, there were arrears for the abovesaid 11 months. (R.C.O.P. was filed on 28. 1989). The authorities below point out that R.W.1 also admitted that as on 22. 1989, there were arrears for six months. The relevant admissions of R.W.I area as follows:

From the above deposition it could be clearly inferred that the default was wilful. All that the tenant deposes as explanation for the delayed payment every month is that the landlord did not demand it and hence he did not pay. But, it is settled law that it is the duty of the tenant to pay the rent regularly every month as enjoined in the statute without expecting any demand from the landlord in that regard. The above deposition clearly shows that for every month there was delayed payment. In one case, as per the above deposition, though six months’ rent was due, he paid only one month’s rent despite the fact that a demand was made for six months. This can be inferred from the reply So, despite the demand, the payment was not made in the abovesaid case. So, it is clear that the default was wilful.

5. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even one day prior to the filing, of the R.C.O.P. that is, on 28. 1989 itself, the entire, arrears were paid off and that itself will show that there was no wilfulness in the default. In this connection, learned counsel also relies on S.Sundaram v. V.R.Pattabiraman, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 582. There, the Supreme Court was considering a batch of rent control ap