The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of wilful default in the context of rent payment, including the burden of proof and compliance with legal procedures for rent payment and deposit.

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 28.4.2010 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority(VII Small Causes Court) Chennai, in R.C.A.No.617 of 2005 in confirming the order dated 27.1.2005 passed by the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCOP No.772 of 2002, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenant.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (a) The respondent/landlady filed the RCOP No.772 of 2002 invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,(herein after referred to as the Act for short) on the ground of wilful default in paying the rents by the tenant. The matter was contested. (b) During enquiry, on the side of the landlady, her son-in-law-Elango was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the tenant, one Dhamodharan was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked. (c) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default. (d) As against the said order, the tenant preferred the appeal in RCA No.617 of 2005 for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority. (e) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of the Courts below, this revision has been filed by the tenant on various grounds.

3. Placing reliance on the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would develop his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (i) Even though the respondent/landlady contended that the revision petitioner/tenant committed default in paying the rents ever since December 2000, there was no evidence adduced on her side to establish the same. The landlady has not even chosen to examine herself as a witness. On her behalf, her son-in-law, on the strength of the power of attorney executed pendente lite by her, in his favour, appeared and deposed in support of the petitioner and he had no knowledge about the payment of rents by the tenant and the receipt of the same on behalf of the landlady. (ii) Sincere steps have been taken to summon Harinatha Reddy before the Rent Controller, but his presence could not be secured and for which, the tenant cannot be found fault with. (iii) On receipt of notice from the landlady dated 11.12.2001, demanding rent from December 2000 onwards, the tenant replied denying any arrears of rent being payable by him. (iv) The Courts below failed to take into consideration the contention of the tenant that one among the tenants, namely, Harinatha Reddy, in the said building, wherein the demised premises is situated, received regularly the rents, but he did not issue any receipt. In fact, the said Harinatha Reddy received the rent only on behalf of the landlady and this is the regular practice in payment of rent by the tenant and the said Harinatha Reddy was in the habit of receiving rent only on behalf of the landlady and without any problem such practice was going on. However, like a bolt from the blue, the landlady sent the aforesaid notice demanding rent, which was shocking to the tenant and whereupon alone the tenant started sending the rent by money order every month, but it was virtually evaded to be received by the landlady and that shows the conduct of the landlady in seeing that the tenant some how or other should be pushed within the mischief of wilful default and she wanted to evict the tenant by invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. (v) The rent Controller fell into error in invoking Section 8(5) of the Act. The tenant with all sincerity sent for several months rent by money orders, which were returned and subsequently, vacation intervened and whereupon after receipt of notice in RCOP, he paid the entire dues ever since December 2001 and as such, the tenant cannot be labelled or dubbed as a wilful defaulter. (v) All cases of default in payment of rent would not tantamount to wilful default. (vi) Afte