Default can be held willful.

This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

.2. There is no dispute that the petitioner is bound to pay a rent of Rs.1,225 per mensem as tenant in premises No.243, ground-floor, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1. The respondent filed the petition for eviction alleging that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent for four months from August, 1981 to November, 1981. The petition was presented on I8th January, 1982. The petitioner contested the same stating that he was paying rent regularly and there was no wilful default on his part. With regard to the period in question, he stated that he paid the rent for August, 1981 on 19. 1981 to the respondent’s son, who returned it on 22. 1981 directing the petitioner to pay it to the respondent himself. On 10. 1991, the petitioner paid the rent for August and September, 1981 to the respondent, who promised to send the receipt therefor later, but did not send the receipt. Again the petitioner paid the rent for the month of October on 112. 1981 and for the month of November, 1981 on 112. 1981 to the respondent’s son. The amounts were returned on 112. 1981 by the respondent’s son with a direction to pay it to the respondent in lump sum for the months of October, November and December, 1981 and January, 1982. The petitioner was shocked to receive a notice in the petition for eviction and on the first hearing date viz., 2. 1982 he offered to pay the arrears of Rs.4,900 and there was nobody on behalf of the respondent to receive the same in court. The tender was noted by the court on the docket and the matter was postponed to another date. The petitioner sent the rental arrears by a demand draft through registered post on 12. 1982 along with a covering letter.

3. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner was not guilty of wilful default and dismissed the petition for eviction. On appeal, the Appellate Authority by his order dated 21. 1983 reversed the conclusion of the Rent Controller and held that the petitioner was guilty of wilful default. Consequently, he ordered eviction.

4. The petitioner filed this revision petition which was posted for hearing on 211. 1986. On that date, nobody appeared for the petitioner and this court dismissed the petition. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the petitioner by obtaining special leave. The Supreme Court passed an order imposing a condition that the petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.1,000 by way of costs to the respondent within a week from 112. 1986 for restoration of the revision petition in order to be heard on merits. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the costs and the Supreme Court remanded the matter directing this court to restore this revision petition to file and dispose of the same on merits.

.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that wilful default is a mixed question of law and fact and on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellate Authority is in error in holding that the petitioner is guilty of wilful default. Learned counsel refers to the following circumstances: There was a tender of the entire arrears of rent on 53.1982, the first date on which the petition for eviction was posted before court. As there was none to accept the amount on behalf of the respondent, it was sent on 12. 1982 by demand draft. That will show that the petitioner was quite conscious of his duties and obligations and if there was any deliberate intention on his part to avoid payment of rent, he would not have tendered the money on the date of first hearing. Secondly, it is submitted, that for about 12 years prior to the period in question, the petitioner had been paying rent very regularly without any default. The conduct of the petitioner during the prior period and immediately after the filing of the petition for eviction will prove that any default o