Merely because procedure contemplated under Act, not followed in sending money order, it would not amount to wilful default.

1. This order shall govern these two Civil Revision Petitions, namely C.R.P. Nos.26 and 27 of 2006, wherein the tenant, who is directed to vacate from the premises in question, have challenged the two orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham, made in R.C.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2004, whereby the dismissal order in R.C.O.P. No.15 of 1999, which was filed seeking an order of eviction of the tenant from the premises in question on the ground of wilful default, demolition and reconstruction, was challenged by the landlord/respondent herein and the other order, allowing the Petition filed under Section 8(5) of the Act by the tenant, was also challenged by the landlord respectively.

2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. Concedingly, the revision petitioner herein is the tenant under the landlord/respondent in these two Civil Revision Petitions in respect of a shop premises at Gudiyatham morefully described in the Petition for eviction from the year 1991. The original rent was enhanced and at the time when the R.C.O.P. was filed, the rent was Rs.215/-per month. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P. No.15 of 1999 for eviction on the ground of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction, following the exchange of notices between the parties. Equally, the revision petitioner/tenant has also filed R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1999 for the deposit of rental into the Court under Section 8(5) of the Act. Both the Petitions were taken up for enquiry by the Rent Controller, which resulted in dismissal of the Petition filed by the landlord and allowed the Petition of the tenant. Aggrieved the landlord preferred two Appeals therefrom, which were also taken up for enquiry by the Appellate forum, namely the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham and both the Appeals were allowed. Hence, these two Civil Revision Petitions have arisen before this Court at the instance of the tenant.

.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the grounds of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction were not made out and hence, the Rent Controller has dismissed the Petition, denying the relief; that the tenancy commenced from the year 1991; that there was no rental arrears at any point of time; that the landlord has asked for enhancement of rental to Rs.600/-, but the tenant was not amenable; that the rentals were tendered, but it was refused to receive; that the rental from May, 1999 to July, 1999 were sent through money order, but it was refused; that while the matter stood thus, there was exchange of notices between the parties; that following the same, the Petition was filed by the respondent/landlord and the revision petitioner/tenant has also filed a Petition for depositing the rental, since the landlord refused to receive when it was tendered in person and also by money order and thus, the rental arrears, even as per the Petition, was only for three months; that it was neither default nor wilful default and hence, the Rent Controller, in appreciation of the circumstances available and marshalling the evidence, has dismissed the Petition rightly, but the Appellate Authority has erroneously reversed the same, granting the order of eviction and hence, it has got to be set aside.

4. Added further the learned counsel that so far as the ground of demolition and reconstruction was concerned, it was denied by the Rent Controller and since it was not a ground urged by the landlord before the Appellate forum, it did not arise for consideration and hence, on that ground is concerned, it has reached finality and thus, the only question so far as the wilful default was concerned, there was no wilful default at all, since there was complete denial of receiving rental and that the revision petitioner was compelled to file a Petition in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1999 to deposit the rental and hence, that Application should have been ordered, but it was erroneously reversed by the Appellate Aut