Non-payment of rent by the tenant, despite an earlier order to deposit arrears, constituted wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 29.04.2009 made in R.C.A.No.15 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / III Addl. District Judge, Puducherry, confirming the order and decretal order, dated 10.08.2007 made in R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif, Puducherry.

2. It is seen that the Rent Control Original Petition was filed by the respondents herein against the petitioner under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default in paying the rent. After the trial, the learned Rent Controller, Puducherry, by order, dated 10.08.2007 allowed the Rent Control Original Petition and ordered eviction of the revision petitioner / tenant on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner herein preferred Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A.No.15 of 2008 under Section 23 (1) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by Judgment and Decree, dated 29.04.2009, confirming the order and decretal order, dated 10.08.2007 passed in R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2006, dismissed the appeal, directing the appellant / tenant to vacate and hand over the possession of the RCOP premises to the respondents / landlords. Aggrieved by which, this Civil Revision has been preferred by the tenant of the premises.

3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein had filed HRCOP No.28/2005 against one Irudayanadhan under Section 8 (5) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, seeking permission to deposit the monthly rents for the premises from January 2004 to February 2005 and for future month rents at Rs.1,250/- per month to the credit of said HRCOP. The respondent therein was called absent and set exparte, hence based on the evidence of the petitioner / tenant and the exhibits marked by him, the said petition was allowed, permitting him to deposit the arrears of rent and the rents for the subsequent period into Court.

4. In the revision, the petitioner has stated that the entire arrears of rent was deposited by him on 25.04.2006, prior to the filing of the R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2006 and hence, the Rent Control Appellate Authority should have held that there was no cause of action for filing the R.C.O.P under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act. However, the contention of the respondents / landlords is different and according to them, there was wilful default, committed by the tenant, who is the revision petitioner herein.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that non-deposit of rent every month, after obtaining an order under Section 8 (5) of the Act would not amount to wilful default. According to the revision petitioner, the earlier order does not fix any time limit for depositing the rent into Court, and the Courts below should have held that the rent is to be paid on or before 10th of very month and that there was no wilful default, with the above pleadings, the petitioner has prayed for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

6. The point for consideration in the revision is whether the concurrent finding of the Courts below that there was wilful default committed by the revision petitioner / tenant, and that the respondents / landlords are entitled to seek eviction under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act are legally sustainable or not?

7. In the counter filed by the revision petitioner before the Rent Controller, it has been admitted that the rent control premises was originally leased out by one Mrs.Franz Margueritte and that lease was renewed subsequently and the petitioner had paid rents till December 2003 and payment of rent from January 2004 was refused to be received by the landlords, hence, the tenant had filed HRCOP 28 of 2005 and that was allowed by order, dated 29.11.2005. In the counter, in paragraph number 4 (i), the petitioner has admitted that Irudayanadha