Rent to be paid by the last day of the month.

These revisions are by the landlord who filed eviction petition against the respondent herein as H.R.C.O.P. No.6 of 1987, on the file of Rent Controller, Tenkasi.

2. The only ground on which the petition for eviction was filed was that there was default in payment of rent.

3. The material averments are as follows:

The respondent is in possession of a non-residential building, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.40. It is said that the lease arrangement was for a period of three years. It is averred that the tenant was not regular in paying rents. The petitioner filed H.R.C.O.P. No.6 of 1987, on the same ground. At that time, the respondent herein also filed H.R.C.O.P. No.5 of 1979 for depositing the rent in court, under Sec.8(5) of the Rent Control Act. The petitioner’s application was dismissed, and the respondent was allowed to deposit rent in court. It is said that the respondent was not regular in paying the rent even though he obtained direction from court for depositing the rent in court. From December, 1978 to February, 1987, respondent has not paid rent, which works out to Rs.3,760 and the non-payment of rent will amount to wilful default and, therefore, the respondent is liable to be evicted.

4. In his counter-statement, the respondent has stated that there rival proceedings between the parties, and that he has also paid a sum of Rs. 1,200 as advance. It is stated that in October, 1978, rent was tendered, and the landlord accepted it. But thereafter the petitioner refused to issue receipt and, therefore he filed H.R.C.O.P. No.5 of 1979 for permission to deposit the rent in court, and the landlord filed H.R.C.O.P. No.6 of 1979, for eviction. As stated earlier, the landlord’s petition was dismissed and the tenant’s petition seeking permission to deposit the rent in court was allowed. He said that he has been depositing the rent regularly in court along with the statement he has also given the particulars of courts in which he has paid the amount. It is said that from December, 1978 to November, 1979. He has deposited the rent in R.C.O.P. No.5 of 1979. He has also deposited rent from December, 1979 to April, 1983 in R.C.O.P. No. 14 of 1979. The rent from May, 1983 to May, 1984 was deposited in R.C.O.P. No.22 of 1980 and that rent for the period from June, 1984 to July, 1987 has been deposited in H.R..C.O.P. No. 14 of 1979. He also said that rent for the month of August, 1989 has been paid in the present petition. According to him, he has deposited the entire rent that was due to the landlord and there was no default committed by him. He also said that landlord has disconnected electricity and the present application is liable to be dismissed since it is lacking in good faith.

5. Rent Controller found that atleast for one month the tenant must have committed default in paying rent and that since there was no explanation from him as to why the rent was not paid in time, the default is wilful, and therefore, he was liable to be evicted from the building.

6. When the matter was taken in appeal, the lower appellate court also mostly agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller, stating that the tenant might have committed default and that it was wilful, and that no circumstance has been made out by the tenant to explain that it was not wilful. Without entering a finding as to whether there are any actual arrears, and if so, for how many months, the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that even if there was such arrear the same could not be considered as wilful. Consequently, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

7. In this revision, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the approach made by the authorities below in considering the ‘default’ is not correct. According to the learned counsel, a mere reading of the counter statement will be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the tenant is liable to be evicted and that the default committed is wilf