The main legal point established in the judgment is that wilful default in payment of rent, both prior to and during the pendency of eviction proceedings, constitutes grounds for eviction under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

1. This Civil Revision has been preferred, challenging the Judgment and Decree, dated 26.08.2009 made in R.C.A.No.29 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Court, Poonamallee, confirming the order and decretal order, dated 26.08.2009 made in R.C.O.P.No.53 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

2. It is seen that R.C.O.P.No.53 of 2006 was filed by the respondent herein, as landlord to direct the petitioner herein to deliver vacant possession of the petition mentioned property to him under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as the Act).

3. Learned Rent Controller, by order and decretal order, dated 29.04.2008 allowed the Rent Control Original Petition and two months time was granted to deliver the vacant possession of the petition mentioned property. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner / tenant preferred the Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A.No.29 of 2008 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub-Judge, Poonamallee, Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, considering the evidence available on record and also the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, confirming the order and decretal order passed by the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by which, the revision has been preferred by the petitioner / tenant.

4. This revision has been preferred by the tenant raising a ground that the appellate authority had erroneously held that the petitioner was examined as petitioner witness and marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. Though the said documents were marked only during cross-examination of D.W.1, subject to the objection and the appellate authority failed to give findings on the objection raised by the appellant. The appellate authority misconstrued that the cheque book was washed away in the flood and the respondent / landlord deposed that the petitioner had not informed the bank that the cheque book was lost in the flood and further stated that the finding of the appellate authority that the respondent / landlord has not issued reply to the letter, dated 04.08.2006 under Ex.P.4 is unwarranted and Ex.P.4 has no relevancy in the case.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has given an erroneous finding that the petitioner / R.W.1 during cross-examination had admitted that rents were paid by cheque for the months of May, June and July 2006 together, contrary to the oral evidence, though the respondent / landlord has not produced any evidence to show that the rents for May, June and July 2007 were paid subsequently and hence, there was wilful default. The finding that the advance amount lying in the hands of the erstwhile landlord, Mr.Rajagopal has to be decided only in the suit in O.S.No.77 of 2006 by the Rent Controller is erroneous. Similarly, the appellate authority has failed to note that in the absence of any notice, prior to the filing of eviction petition, burden of proof lies only on the landlord to prove that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent / landlord was not in the habit of giving receipt for the payment of rent, therefore, the burden of proof lies on the respondent / landlord to show that the petitioner herein had committed any wilful default in payment of rent. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that during the cross-examination of R.W.1, it was suggested that for May, June and July 2006, monthly rents were not paid, though the cheques were duly encashed by the respondent.

7. It is an admitted fact that the respondent / landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition, seeking an order of eviction of the petitioner / tenant under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as tenant and the landlord is not in dispute in