The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant's payment of arrears of rent on the first hearing date absolved him from willful default, considering the obligation of the tenant to pay rent regularly and the landlord's duty to accept rent.

The civil revision petitioner/respondent/tenant has filed the present revision petition aggrieved against the orders dated 30.01.2004 in R.C.A.No.22 of 2002 in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2001 passed by the learned Appellate Authority viz., Sub Judge, Ootacamund.

2. The respondent/appellant/petitioner/landlord has filed a petition against the revision petitioner/respondent/ tenant under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) act, 1960 for willful default in payment of rent for the period from 011. 2000 to 31.01.2001 and consequently seeking an order of eviction with a direction to vacate and hand over possession of the petition mentioned premises.

3. After contest the learned Rent Controller viz., learned District Munsif, Ootacamund passed orders in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2001 on 07.01.2002 dismissing the petition holding that the revision petitioner/tenant has not committed willful default in payment of rent.

4. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller viz., learned District Munsif, Ootacamund in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2001, the respondent/appellant/landlord has filed an appeal R.C.A.No.22 of 2002 before the learned Appellate Authority viz., Sub Judge, Ootacamund.

5. The learned Appellate Authority viz., Sub Judge, Ootacamund on 30.01.2004 has allowed the R.C.A.No.22 of 2002 directed the revision petitioner/tenant to hand over vacant possession of the petition building within two months.

6. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant. The learned Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration of the fact that the revision petitioner/tenant has been paying the rent even without default, during the pendency of the rent control proceedings and that the revision petitioner/tenant has paid the entire arrears as per orders of Honourable Supreme Court at once when the same was brought to his notice which has not been taken note of by the learned Appellate Authority and that in the petition the reason for default has not been assigned and the order of the learned Appellate Authority is based on surmises and that the learned Appellate Authority has erred in passing unnecessary comments on the revision petitioner/tenant and the non consideration of Exs.B.8 and B.9 viz., the record slips pertaining to cheques is fatal to the proceedings and therefore prays for allowing the revision petition.

7. The further pleas of the revision petitioner/tenant are that the learned Appellate Authority erred in holding that the revision petitioner/tenant has not taken steps under Section 8(5) of the Act when in fact the rent was deposited in the proceedings without any delay and that the non consideration of the explanation furnished by the revision petitioner/tenant in regard to the return of cheques through messenger is in correct and that the Appellate Authority has erred in disbelieving the version of the revision petitioner/tenant to the effect that particulars of messenger who returned the cheques have not been furnished.

8. The respondent/landlord in his petition has averred that the revision petitioner/respondent is a tenant in respect of the petition demised premises and has committed default in payment of monthly rent from 011. 2000 till January 2001 amounting to Rs.1,200/- and that the default is willful, deliberate and wanton and that the revision petitioner/tenant is having the knowledge of the duty to pay the rent in every month etc.

9. Admittedly, the tenancy is in respect of a non residential building, occupied by the revision petitioner/tenant.

10. The revision petitioner/tenant has taken the stand that the rent for the premises was Rs.45/- per month and that the landlord took the eviction proceedings on earlier occasion for alleged willful default and in Civil Appeal No.8737 of 1995 before the Honble Supreme Court, the revision petitioner/tenant succeeded but the rent was enhanced to Rs.400/- per month by mutual consent from 011. 1996 as per orders o