A tenant who commits wilful default in payment of rent is liable to be evicted, even if he subsequently invokes the provisions of Section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act to deposit rent in court, unless he fulfills the conditions laid down in that provision.

1. Tenant is the revision petitioner, who is the second respondent in the eviction petition.

2. At the time of initiation of eviction proceedings, there was only one respondent, i.e., the brother of the revision petitioner. Subsequently, when an objection was raised by first respondent stating that the eviction petition is bad for non-joinder, revision petitioner was also added as an additional party.

3. Material averments stated in the eviction petition may be summarised thus:—

First respondent herein is the owner of the building scheduled to the eviction petition. Originally, second respondents father Veerasamy Chettiar was a tenant under him, and, after the death of Veerasamy Chettiar, second respondent continued as a tenant in the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. He is running a printing press in the building in question under the name and style of ‘Sri Vetrivel Press’. It is said that from 1975 onwards, landlord was demanding the second respondent to vacate the building since the same was required for his personal occupation for conducting his own grain business. At that time, tenant refused to vacate the building, and in July, 1986, the matter was referred to the local Panchayatdars for arriving at a settlement. A settlement was arrived at whereby the tenant agreed to vacate the premises after expiry of three years. A muchalika was prepared and both the landlord and tenant subscribed their signatures to the same. After the expiry of the period, again, the tenant refused to vacate the building, and another three years period was also granted, and even after the expiry of that period also, a further extension of another three years was granted, and finally by November 1985, the entire periods granted by the landlord expired.

4. It is further averred in the petition that the landlord is running a grain business in a rented premises and, therefore, he wanted the schedule building for his own occupation. When such a demand was made, the tenant filed O.S. No. 86 of 1986 before District Munsifs Court, Salem and obtained an interim order restraining the landlord from dispossessing him without having recourse to law. It is the case of the landlord that once the term has expired, the occupation of the premises by the tenant becomes wrongful, and he is bound to surrender vacant possession of the same. It is further averred that the last payment of rent was on 18.12.1985, and, on the date of eviction petition, more than seven months rent was in arrears. To prevent the landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of default, tenant, without any bona fides, has invoked the provisions of Sec. 8(5) of the Act, and has filed R.C.O.P. No. 85 of 1986 and sought permission to deposit rent in Court. Under the above circumstances landlord sought for eviction of the tenant on two grounds, namely.

(1) that he has committed wilful default in payment of rent; and

(2) that he requires the buildings bona fide for his own occupation. The eviction petition was filed on 28.3.1986.

5. In the counter-statement filed by Kirubakaran (first respondent in the eviction petition), he contended that in January, 1986, landlord demanded exorbitant rent on 10.1.1986 and, therefore, refused to receive the rent, and on 15.1.1986, i.e. , five days after such refusal, tenant sent a sum of Rs. 750/- being rents due for the months of Ippasi, Karthigai and Margali, through the money order. The same was refused to be accepted. Again, the subsequent rent was also sent through money order, and it corresponded to the months of Thai and Maasi. The same was also refused to be accepted. On 16.4.1986, a notice was issued by the tenant to the landlord, asking him to name a bank wherein he can deposit the rent to the landlords account. No reply was received from landlord. Therefore, tenant filed R.C.O.P. No. 85 of 1986, seeking permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the rent in Court. The said petition was allowed on 16.10.1986. According to the respondent,