The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant's failure to pay rent regularly, especially during the pendency of eviction proceedings, can constitute wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960.

These two C.R.P.NPDs. had arisen against the common Judgment of the learned Rent control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge), Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.A.No.994 of 2003 and 1496 of 2003. R.C.A.No.994 of 2003 had arisen against the fair and decretal order in R.C.O.P.No.2227 of 2002 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and R.C.A.No.1496 of 2003 had arisen against the fair and decretal order in R.C.O.P.No.871 of 2003 on the file of the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. R.C.O.P.No.2227 of 2002 was filed by the landlord under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction on the ground that 19 months rent for the petition scheduled building is in arrears and that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent. Learned Rent controller after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent and also after taking into consideration Ex.R.1 the sole document filed in the Rent Control Proceedings on behalf of the respondent therein, had come to a conclusion that the tenant/revision petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent for 19 months and accordingly allowed the petition, ordering eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner from the petition schedule building, giving two months time to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition schedule property. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller (XII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, the tenant had preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai in R.C.A.No.994 of 2003 who, after finding no merits for interference in the findings of the learned Rent Controller, had dismissed the R.C.A.No.994 of 2003 thereby confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.2227 of 2002. The Rent Control Appellate Authority had given a months time for the tenant to vacate and hand over vacant possession to the landlord. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, C.R.P.No.787 of 2006 has been preferred by the revision petitioner/tenant.

3. R.C.O.P.No.871 of 2003 was filed by the tenant under Section 8(5) of the Act for permitting him to deposit the arrears of rent from January, 2003. The learned Rent Controller, after giving a definite finding to the effect that the arrears of rent is from May 2001, has come to the conclusion that there is no ground for permitting the tenant to deposit rent from January, 2003 and accordingly dismissed the petition filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.871 of 2003. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant had preferred R.C.A.No.1496 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai who after hearing both the R.C.A.Nos.994 of 2003 and 1496 of 2003 jointly, in his common judgment, had dismissed both the appeals. Against the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.1496 of 2003 the tenant had preferred C.R.P.NO.788 of 2006.

4. The findings of the Courts below in both the R.C.As.are concurrent in nature. Unless it is shown before this Court that the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is perverse and the findings have been given against evidence, this Court, sitting in exercising the powers of revision, cannot interfere with the findings of the Courts below, which is concurrent in nature.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on the decision reported in 2003 (3) CTC 348 (P.M.Punnose v K.M.Munneruddin and others) would contend that in the absence of any demand by way of legal notice as contemplated under the proviso to Section 10(2) (i) of the Act, both the Courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that the default committed by the tenant as wilful default, which is not permissible under law.

6. The facts of the c