Deposit of entire arrears of rent at the time of filing counter by the tenant.

Respondent was served through Court. There is no representation on his behalf. Heard Mr. K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner - tenant.

2. This revision petition hasbeen filed against the order in R.C.A.No.l of 1990 dated 4. 1991 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal (Sub Court), Nagapattinam, reversing the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1986 dated 310. 1989, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Nagapattinam.

3. Respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1986 on the only ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The petitioner herein is the tenant of a non-residential premises let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs.50. The landlord -respondent herein alleged that the petitioner has committed wilful default in the payment of rent from January, 1985 to December, 1985, to the tune of Rs.600 for 12 months. The petitioner - tenant contested the petition on the ground that the landlord used to collect the rent through his agent once in four months or six months, that the agent of the landlord used to come to him whenever he decided and that such visits would not be regular, but would be irregular and random. According to the petitioner -tenant, there is no deliberate or calculated or supine indifference on his part in paying the rent and only because of the said circumstances, the rent was not paid. It is further contended that as soon as the petition was filed, along with the counter he had paid the arrears of rent till that date and he is paying the rent regularly and as on the date of filing of the revision, there is no arrears.

4. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there is no wilful default in the payment of rent as contemplated under Sec. 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. But, the first appellate authority interfered with the finding of the Rent Controller on the sole ground that it is the duty of the tenant to tender the rent.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner -tenant, the appellate authority has failed to take into consideration the attendant circumstances under which the rent was not paid and that the appel-a conclusion.

6.I have been taken through the entire pleadings and also of the judgments of the Courts below. The Rent Controller on a consideration of the entire materials placed before him, both oral and documentary, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner herein has not committed wilful default. This finding was rendered on the basis of evidence and particularly on the basis of Exs.B-3, B-4, B-5, B-10 and B-12, which are receipts for lump sum payments of rent for six months, four months, six months and four months respectively. However, the appellate authority interfered with the said finding on the ground that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent to the landlord and that it is not for the landlord or his agent to run after the tenant asking for payment of rent. Aggrieved against the said order, the revision has been preferred.

7. As rightly pointed out by Mr. K.Chandrasekaran, the appellate authority has failed to take into account the attendant circumstances of the case in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner - tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent for January, 1985 to December, 1985. In this regard, the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate and take into consideration the admitted fact that the agent of the landlord used to collect the rent only periodically and not regularly and the accumulated rent used to be paid only whenever the agent comes to the shop of the petitioner and like tenants. In my opinion of court the appellate authority has failed to take into account that to constitute wilful default, the default should be intentional, deliberate and with full knowledge of the legal consequences flowing therefrom. Admittedly, the entire arrears as on the date of the petition was paid along with the counter affidavit on the very first hea