Non-payment of rent, even if prolonged, does not automatically constitute wilful default under rent control laws. Wilful default requires a conscious and deliberate refusal or neglect to pay rent, exhibiting supine indifference and callousness.

1. The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal District Judge/Appellate Authority, Pondicherry, dated 13. 1991 in M.A.No.47 of 1990 confirming the order of the District Munsif/Rent Controller, Pondicherry, dated 20.11.1990 in H.R.C.O.P.No.46 of 1990. The tenant is the petitioner in this revision.

2. The respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, against the petitioner/tenant for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and his requirement of the premises for personal occupation under S.10(2)(1) and S.10(3)(a)(1) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. As far as the requirement for personal occupation is concerned, the claim was rejected by the Rent Controller and there was no appeal by the landlord. As far as the claim made on the basis of wilful default is concerned, the landlord contended that the tenant failed to pay the rents for the months of January and February, 1990, and filed the eviction petition on 1 2. 3.1990. The tenant filed his counter stating that right from the inception of the tenancy, he has been very regular in payment of rent and the rent for the months of January, February and March, 1990, was sent by money order on 14. 1990 even before he received the summons in the H.R.C.O.P. There was also an agreement of sale in favour of the tenant and when the matter was being discussed, the landlord refused to collect the rent and hence the tenant sent the rent for the three months by money order. The tenant’s contention before the Rent Controller was that the default was not wilful and therefore, the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction.

3. Before the Rent Controller, Exs.A-1 to A-16 were marked on the side of the landlord. The landlord examined himself as P.W. 1. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-13. The learned Rent Controller held that the non-payment of rent for January and February, 1990, was wilful and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred M.A.No.47 of 1990 before the Appellate Authority/Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction holding that the default is wilful. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has preferred the above revision.

4. It is argued on behalf of the tenant that he has been very regular in payment of rent right from the year 1983 and in fact, his advance of Rs.2, 000 paid to the landlord pursuant to the agreement of sale is with the landlord. The rent was not sent for January and February, 1990, as there was exchange of notices between the parties during that time in relation to the agreement of sale. Therefore, the non-payment of rent in the same month was not wilful. It is also further stated that the tenant has paid the rent uptill date and there was no arrears of rent. It is also pertinent to notice that the landlord did not prefer any appeal against the rejection of his claim for eviction on the ground of personal occupation.

5. I have been taken through the pleadings and the judgments of the authorities below. I have also perused the entire records and the oral evidence tendered by both parties before the Rent Controller. I have heard the arguments of Mrs.Krishnaveni for the petitioner/tenant and Mr.Philip Ravindran for the respondent/landlord.

6. It is contended on behalf of the tenant that the Appellate Authority has erred in holding that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent his reasons therefor are erroneous and unsustainable. My attention was invited to Exs.A-4, A-6, and A-7 and Exs.B-10 and B-11 by the learned counsel for the tenant. The above documents clearly show that the landlord and the tenant have been exchanging notices on the basis of the agreement of sale admittedly entered into under Ex.B-9 and at no point of time the landlord had any complaint that the tenant has been irregular in payment of rent. T