In my view, this revision will clearly have to be allowed, on the findings of fact. The first Court allowed the eviction of the tenant, and the tenant instituted an appeal. The main ground was that the tenant had committed ‘wilful default’ in payments of rent for a total period of nine months. At least with regard to three months, out of this period, the tenant appears to have sent the rent by money orders, though not to the correct address of the landlord. This is rather curious, since the landlord claims that he was residing in practically the same premises, to the knowledge of the tenant, and that, there was neither justification nor reason for the tenant to send the money orders to any other address. However, I am willing to assume that, with regard to the three months in question, the default cannot be characterised as ‘wilful', for the simple reason that there was an attempt by the tenant to tender rent by money orders.

But, there is, in any event, an unaccounted period of five months during which the tenant did not pay rent. The fact that the tenant deposited the rent subsequently and quite early, after the inception of the proceedings, may serve to extenuate his d