Burden of proof for willful default.

This proceeding for eviction under the Rent Control Act has had a considerable and protracted history, and, at one stage, it came up to this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 710of 1963 and 507 of 1964 which were dealt with by Ramamurthi J., in January, 1965. But in view of the very restricted compass of this disposal of the matter that I am making, I shall content myself with a statement of the essential situation. The case is also of some interest for the citation of authority by the learned District Judge, in revision, upon the question of the ingredients of ‘wilful default’ as occurring in the Rent Control Act. There would appear to have been some confusion or misconception in that matter, which appears to merit a certain clarification.

We may take it that relations between the parties, viz., the tenant who is a lady who took the premises on lease in December, 1950, and the landlord, deteriorated very considerably after the tenant instituted a police complaint against the landlord for alleged insult and abuse, which ended in an acquittal. The premises were to be used for running a dispensary called Ratna Bai Clinic and the tenant (R.W. 1) was not a qualified doctor but was largely relying upon her niece, one Devaki, who was to be placed in charge of the clinic. The tenant did file a complaint against the landlord for assault and trespass, as well as insult, and the record shows that there were very bitter feelings between the parties. The only question is whether the tenant committed ‘wilful default’ in payment of rent, for the premises, for the period December, 1960, January, 1961 and February, 1961. It is pertinent here to note that the premises were demised to the tenant on 1st December, 1960, on a monthly rent of Rs. 45. Curiously enough, the landlord claims that an advance of Rs. 45 alone was paid while the tenant claims that she paid an advance of Rs. 500.

I am now concerned with the order of the learned District Judge in revision, and the learned District Judge rightly addresses himself to the only question which was before him, and which had to be extricated from the mass of the material concerning the regrettable relationship between the parties which led to criminal proceedings etc. that was the question whether the rents for December, 1960, January, 1961 and February, 1961 were actually paid by the tenant, or whether she committed ‘wilful default ‘in the payment of these rents.

It is not in dispute that the tenant sent the rent for March, 1961 by money order, and also subsequently in June, and that there were two refusals of this money order by the landlord. On 20th June, 1961, the landlord sent the letter Exhibit P-1 claiming that no rent had been paid for December, 1960 and January, and February, 1961, and that that was the reason for the refusal of the subsequent money orders. Unfortunately, these statements cannot be relied upon, as any index of the truth. By that time, criminal proceedings had been instituted by the tenant, and the feelings of the landlord must have been bitterly adverse to the tenant. That the landlord did not earlier claim that rents for the crucial three months had not been paid, is not without significance. However, that is not conclusive, for the simple reason that the landlord may well have waited, thinking that the rent would be subsequently paid, till some incidents led to a startling deterioration in the relationship between the parties.

With regard to the law on the subject, the following authorities have been referred to by the learned District Judge and I shall confine myself to them Rangaraju v. Partitasarathi1, Lakshmi Ammal v. Gurunathan2and Khivraj Ghordia v. Maniklal Bhattad3. The last was a decision of Ramamurthi, J., and the Judge made two observations, which I am quoting here, as I find myself in entire agreement with them. The first is this:

“ The principle that emerges from the several decisions is that for default to be regarded as wilful default, the conduct of the tenant shou