Tenant held not guilty for wilful default.

All these three revision petitions arise out of a common judgment rendered by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 dismissing the appeals filed by the three petitioners against the orders of eviction passed against them by the Rent Controller. All the three petitioners are tenants in the various portions in the same building. Two grounds were urged for the purpose of eviction: (1) wilful default in payment of rent, and (2) bona fide requirement of the premises for the purpose of demolition and re-construction.

2. The Rent Controller by a common judgment in all the three rent control petitions filed by the petitioners, held that the grounds of wilful default in payment of arrears of rent and the bona fide requirement of the premises for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction, has been established. On appeals filed by the petitioners, the appellate authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and ordered eviction. In these three revision petitions, the petitioners challenged the findings rendered by the Appellate Authority on the above two grounds.

3. Rajalinga Chettiar is the petitioner in C.R.P. No.371 of 1990. He became a tenant under the respondent on 12. 1978 in respect of Door No.187, Rajaveedhi, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore Taluk, on a monthly rent of Rs.75 per mensem. According to him, he was regularly remitting the rent and the respondent in May, 1983 demanded enhanced rent which he refused to pay. He is running a textile shop in the petition premises. Since the respondent did not send anybody to receive the rent as he was doing earlier, he sent a sum of Rs.225 by money order representing the rent for the months of May, June and July, 1983 and the same was received by the respondent on 18. 1983. After receiving the rent, the respondent sent a notice on 18. 1983 as if the petitioner is in arrears of Rs.900 completely suppressing the receipt of the Money order. The petitioner tenant, on 29. 1983, sent a reply denying the averments in the notice. Again for August, 1983 the petitioner sent the rent by money order on 29. 1983, but the respondent refused it. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner tenant deposited the amount in Post Office Savings Bank Account in his name. On 29. 1983, he called upon the respondent to specify a Bank so that the rent could be deposited. The respondent without specifying a Bank, issued another notice on 10. 1983 stating that he was not prepared to receive the rent. According to the petitioner, he was regularly depositing money in the Post Office Savings Bank Account, and when the position being thus, the respondent filed R.C.O.P. No.25 of 1986on the file of the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default as well as for demolition and re-construction. In the petition, it was alleged by the respondent herein that the shops are in dilapidated condition and required demolition and re-construction. The petitioner herein filed a detailed counter-affidavit refuting the allegations of the respondent.

4. In respect of Door Nos.188 and 184 adjoining the petitioner’s shop, a similar allegation of wilful default has been put forward by the respondent in a similar manner. According to the petitioners, they were forced to deposit the money in the Post Office Savings Bank Account since the respondent refused to receive the rent and also did not specify a Bank. An Advocate- Commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises and he filed a report. Subsequently the court appointed an Engineer, P.W.D. to inspect the premises. However, the said Engineer filed his report only for Door No.184 and he did not file any report in respect of premises in R.C.O.P. Nos.25 and 26 of 1986, for which an Advocate-Commissioner was also appointed. The Engineer was directed to inspect the petitioner’s premises (C.R.P. No.371 of 1990) in respect of Door No.187 and other premises also, in the interest of parties.

.5. The Rent Controller passed an order