The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the concept of 'wilful default' in paying rent under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, emphasizing the necessity of deliberate and intentional default with full knowledge of legal consequences.

Inveighing the order dated 27. 2009 passed by the Rent Control-Appellate Authority (VIII Small Causes Court) Chennai,. in R.C.A.No.579 of 2007 confirming the order dated 16. 2007 passed by the XII judge, Court of Small Cause, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.252 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenant.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germance for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

(a) Therespondent/landlady filed the R.C.O.P.No.252 of 2007 invoking Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2) (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) seeking eviction on the following grounds:

(i) ‘Wilful default’ in paying the rents by the tenant;

(ii) the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause.

(b) Thematter was contested by the tenant.

(c) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of ‘wilful default’ in paying the rent by the tenant.

(d) As against the said order, the tenant preferred appeal in R.C.A.No.579 of 2007 for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority.

(e) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of the Courts below, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

3. Placing reliance on the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would develop his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(i) The certificate of postings relied on by the tenant by no stretch of imagination could be ignored by any Court for the reason that legal presumption is available as to the genuineness of such document.

(ii) Even though the landlady contended that prelitigation notice as well as telegram was sent by her to the tenant, absolutely there is no evidence in that regard. There is only a vague reference in the averments in the RCOP about the despatch of the letter and telegram.

(iii) It is an admitted fact that once in two months rents were paid by the tenant to the landlady and incommensurate with that alone, every two months cheques were issued, but those cheques were not returned by the landlady, which would indicate that the landlady deliberately wanted to raise her accusative finger as against the tenant as though he was a ‘wilful defaulter’.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the tenant would pray for setting aside the orders of the Courts below and for dismissing the RCOP.

4. By way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned senior counsel for the respondent/landlady would develop his arguments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

(i) Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is very clear that if there is any difficulty in paying the rent by the tenant to the landlady, it is open for the tenant to adhere to the said Section 8 of the Act. But in this case, peculiarly cheques were allegedly sent not even by Registered Posts but under the alleged certificates of posting.

(ii) It is the bounden duty of the tenant to see that the rents are paid periodically without any default irrespective of the fact whether the landlady demanded for it or not. But in this case, the Courts below correctly alalysed the facts and held that the tenant failed to discharge her duty in paying the rents periodically and as such, he committed ‘wilful default’ in paying the rents, warranting no interference by this Court in revision.

Accordingly, the learned senior counsel for the landlady would submit that absolutely there was nothing wrong in the orders passed by the Courts below and as such, he prays for dismissing the CRP.

5. The point for consideration is to whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the tenant committed ‘wilful default’ in paying the rents?

6. Heard both sides.

7. Relatingto the concept ‘wilful default’, at the