Tenants are liable to be evicted on ground of wilful default.

These Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 212. 2002 passed in R.C.A.Nos.12 and 13 of 2001 on the file of the learned appellate authority/sub-Judge, Ootacamund, confirming the orders dated 14. 2001 and 14. 2001 passed in RCOP Nos.14 and 42 of 1995 on the file of the rent controller, Kothagiri, respectively.

2.The brief facts are as under:

The tenants are the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners and the respondent landlady are the brothers and sister. The landlady/sister filed two suits in O.S.Nos.200/1986 and 201/1986 against the revision petitioner in C.R.P.NPD.No.509/2003 and the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.510/2003 for evicting them from the suit schedule property on the ground that they were permitted by her to occupy the properties and she now requests the property for her own occupation. Both the brothers resisted the suits on the ground that they are not permissive occupants but are tenants under their sister. The trial court dismissed the suits by holding that the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.509/2003 is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.110/- and the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.510/2003 is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.75/-. Thereafter the landlord-sister filed two RCOPs., in RCOP No.14/1995 and 42/1995 on the ground that both the brothers are guilty of wilful default and she required both the premises which are separated only by a door for her own occupation for running a mess. The rent controller allowed RCOP No.14/1995 and RCOP No.42/1995 on both the grounds and the appeals preferred by the brothers in RCA Nos.12/2001 and 13/2001 were dismissed by the appellate authorities. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the authorities below, the brothers have filed the above two revision petitions.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions.

4. The rent controller in his order dated 14. 2001 in RCOP No.14/1995 and order dated 14. 2001 in RCOP No.42/1995 found that after the landlord refused to receive the rents sent by Money Order, the brothers did not take steps to deposit the rent before the court after following the procedure contemplated under Sec.8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The rent controller disapproved the conduct of the brothers in occupying the premises for nine years without taking steps to deposit the rent and therefore the rent controller found that they are liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. Insofar as the requirement of the landlady of both the premises situated in the same building divided by the door, the rent controller found that her requirement is bona fide and allowed the petitions on that ground also. The appellate authority concurred with the findings of the rent controller in entirety after re-evaluating the evidence and these concurrent findings are being assailed before me.

5. It is settled law that this court under its revisional jurisdiction conferred on it under Sec.25 of the Act will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below unless the findings are unreasonable, illegal and perverse. The revision under Sec.25 is even though much wider than the revision conferred on this court under Sec.115 of CPC, the same is not an appeal enabling this court to re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence to come to a different conclusion unless the orders of the authorities below are so erroneous, unreasonable and perverse.

6. In the present case, the rent controller in both the eviction petitions found that the brothers/tenants who are occupying the properties for nine years without taking steps to deposit the rent when the rents sent by them by Money Order were returned by their sister. Sec.8 of the Act has been enacted for the purpose of enabling a tenant to deposit the rent before the controller when the landlady refused to accept the rent