The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court found no deliberate or calculated wilful default in the payment of monthly rent by the Respondent/Tenant, based on the evidence and actions presented by both parties.

1. The Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Landlord has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 10.1.2003 in R.C.A. No.19 of 2001 passed by the learned Appellant Authority viz., Sub-Judge, Vellore.

2. The learned Appellate Authority viz., Sub-Judge, Vellore while passing order in R.C.A No. 19 of 2001 on 10.1.2003 has inter alia observed that ‘there is no room to come to the conclusion that the Respondent/Tenant has not paid the rent intentionally and has remained in arrears’ and resultantly, held that the Rent Control Petition filed by the Revision Petitioner cannot be allowed and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal without costs.

3. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 10.1.2003 in R.C.A. No.19 of 2001 passed by the learned Appellate Authority viz., Sub-Judge, Vellore, the Revision Petitioner/Landlord has projected this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

4. According to the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Landlord, the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 21.11.2001 in R.C.O.P. No.55 of 1997 and the order of the Learned Appellate Authority viz., Sub Judge, Vellore in R.C.A.No.19 of 2001 dated 10.1.2003 are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that both the authorities have failed to appreciate the fact that there is admittedly a default from 1.2.1996 to 31.10.1996 in regard to the payment of rent from February 1996 to September 1996 and instead the authorities should have held that the Respondent/Tenant has committed willful default in regard to the payment on monthly rent for the period in issue.

5. Added further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Landlord that the burden of showing that the default is not willful is on the Respondent/Tenant and the Respondent/Tenant has not discharged the same, which aspect has not been taken note of by both the statutory authorities under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

6. That apart, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Landlord submits that the authorities have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that in Ex.B1-Receipt dated 8.9.1995 and Ex.B2-Receipt dated 26.2.1996, there is lumpsum payment of rent and there is a contract to receive rent after accumulation.

7. Advancing his arguments, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Landlord contends that there have been earlier proceedings between the parties for eviction and in spite of the same, the Respondent/Tenant has failed to pay the monthly rent regularly and therefore, both the authorities ought to have held that the Respondent/Tenant has committed willful default and also there is no explanation on the side of the Respondent/Tenant which can be accepted for the delay in paying the monthly rent which admitted has to be paid every succeeding months, but these crucial aspects have not been appreciated by the statutory authorities in a proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

8. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Landlord in support of his contention that subsequent payment of rent by the Respondent/Tenant will not cure the default committed, cites the decision of this Court in Kesavan v. S. Vincent Pillai, 1973 TLNJ 1, wherein, it is among other things held that ‘…However much the tenant has paid the amounts subsequently, the willful default committed by him cannot be cured. In the present case the tenant has committed willful default’.

9. Herelies on the decision in Pappu Reddiar v. T.K. Murugesa Udayar, 1996 (1) MLJ 403, wherein, it is held thus:

“As per agreement entered within the year 1976, Respondent (tenant) is liable to pay Rs.75 per month as rent regularly and that the same is payable on or before the 5th of every succeeding English month. So, there is an obligation on the part of the tenant to tender the rent regularly in accordance with the contract between the parties. The tenant cannot explain the default by