The judgment established that wilful default in payment of rent can occur even in the presence of a dispute over the rent amount, and that the tenant's actions, such as failure to deposit rent or file for fixation of fair rent, can constitute wilful default.

1. This revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Coimbatore), in R.C.A.No.18 of 1995 confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore, in R.C.O.P.No.132 of 1992. The tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court.

2. The landlord filed the petition for eviction contending that he is the owner of the premises in question. The respondent was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.300. He was not regular in the payment of rent in spite demands and he had failed to pay the rent which fell due on 1.12.1991 namely for the month of November, 1999 and all the subsequent rents up to 1.4.1992. By then the arrears of rent had totaled to Rs. 1,500. Since the tenant was showing supine indifference, the petitioner gave a warning to the respondent on 4.4.1992 that he was going to institute an eviction proceedings. The tenant by his letter dated 7.4.1992 falsely contended that he was a tenant only under the father of the landlord for the past 20 years on a monthly rent of Rs.90 and that he was sending a sum of Rs.270 towards three months rent from 13.1.1992 to 13.4.1992. The father of the landlord died on 13.1.1992. The said contentions in the letter were false. His father was not in any way connected with the building and the property originally belonged to his grandmother and after her death in terms of her will dated 22.6.1977, the property devolved on him absolutely. At no point of time his father had any right over the property. There was also no basis in the contention that the monthly rent was Rs.90. The monthly rent was Rs.300 and was also payable on the first of every month and not 13th of the month. The landlord further contended that the stand taken by the tenant stating that his father was the owner of the building clearly amounted to the denial of the title to the petitioner. The respondent had thus committed wilful default in payment of rent and had also denied the title to the landlord. Therefore, he had issued a legal notice dated 11.4.1992 terminating the tenancy. The tenant sent a reply on 24.4.1992 mentioning for the first time that by his letter dated 7.4.1992 he had sent Pay Order for a sum of Rs.270 and that he will pay the rent only if the landlord was prepared to receive Rs.90 per month as the heir of his father. The landlord further contended that the allegation that the Pay Order was enclosed for a sum of Rs.270 was false and that no such Pay Order was sent. On 13.5.1992 the tenant sent a Money Order for Rs.360 alleging that it was the rent for four months and the landlord refused to receive the same since it was not the correct amount. Therefore, the tenant was liable to be evicted on grounds of wilful default in payment of rent from November, 1991 till date. The conduct of the tenant also discloses that the tenant was adamantly disputing the title of the landlord.

3. In the counter filed by the tenant, it was contended that monthly rent was Rs.90 and not Rs.300 as claimed by the landlord. It was not correct to state that he has failed to pay the rent which fell due on 1.12.1991. He was paying the rent regularly to the father of the landlord who was regularly receiving the same till his death. The other allegations in the petitions were denied. Since after the demise of his father, the landlord did not receive the rents and therefore, he had sent the Pay Order drawn on Canara Bank, Mettupalayam Branch, towards three months rent. In the covering letter he did not mention about the same and the landlord was trying to take advantage of the omission and had deliberately suppressed about the very receipt of the Pay Order. He had never denied the title of the landlord and he was paying the rent to the landlord regularly and after his demise he was prepared to pay rent to the respondent as the heir of his father. Therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed.

4. The Rent Controller found that the conduct of the tenant amounted to denial of the title and that he