There was no proper tender of rent by tenant.

1. Landlady is the revision petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed eviction petition under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Rent Control Act on the ground that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1987 to October, 1988. The respondent contends that he is the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned premises for the past thirty years and he never committed wilful default and the rent upto January, 1987 was received by the agent of the landlady and thereafter, as the suit was pending in the City Civil Court in O.S.No.117 of 1987, the landladys agent represented that the rent should be paid only to the lessee of the petitioner to whom the petition mentioned premises was also granted on lease and the lessee was not prepared to receive the rent and directing the respondent to contact the landladys agent for settlement of the disputes and insisting upon delivery of possession. The respondent was not aware of the scheme behind the petitioner and the lessee who filed the present petition and when the respondent contracted his counsel with regard to payment of rent he was advised to send the rent, he was advised to send the rent by demand draft and accordingly, the entire arrears was sent by demand draft dated 7.1.1989 which was not received and sent back informing about the pendency of the proceedings. The respondent further contends that the petitioner attempted to deprive the entire tenancy of the respondent with ulterior motive and the respondent was obliged to file O.S.No.117 of 1987 for injunction and when the respondent tendered the entire arrears, the petitioner refused to receive it and so, there is no wilful default in payment of rent on the part of the respondent.

3. The learned rent controller dismissed the petition which was confirmed by the appellant authority. Both the courts below have found that there is no wilful default.

4. Aggrieved against the concurrent finding, the landlady has come forward with the present civil revision petition.

5. The lower appellate court found that before the first hearing, the tenant paid the entire arrears of rent by means of demand draft and prior to that also, the tenant had sent the rent by money order which was refused and so, it cannot be stated that there is wilful default on the part of the tenant.

6. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that under Ex.R-5, the tenant had sent the rent accruing for number of months, i.e., February, 1987 to September, 1988 and thereafter, he sent by money order and so, it cannot be stated that there was proper tender on the part of the tenant.

7. On a perusal of Ex.R-5, it is seen that the rent from February, 1987 to September, 1987 had been sent under Ex.R-6 on 9.11.1987 and under Ex.R-7, the tenant sent the rent for four months. These things reveal that the tenant was not properly tendering the rent and he has accrued the rent for number of months and sent it thereafter in lumpsum. Even with regard to the contentions raised by the respondent in the counter that there was a representation by the landlady to pay the rent to the lessee and the lessee was not prepared to receive the rent, but directed the tenant to contact the landladys agent to settle the disputes is not acceptable and convincing. There is no acceptable evidence in that aspect. The respondent became the tenant under the petitioner and was paying rent to her. It is the duty of the tenant to see that every months rent is paid in time to the landlady. When the landlady refused to receive the rent, the tenant ought to have taken steps to tender the rent to her by the modes prescribed under the Act. Even the tenant has not paid the rent regularly and he had accrued it for number of months and then only sent it. In the absence of any agreement between the parties. This act amounts to wilful default and it cannot be stated that there was proper tender on the part of the tenant.

8. The Supreme Court has held in Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.Pattabiraman Sun