A tenant who obtains an order under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, permitting them to deposit rent into court, is under a duty to deposit the rent regularly thereafter, and failure to do so constitutes wilful default.

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973, herein after referred to as the Act. The tenant is the Revision Petitioner. The respondent landlady initiated proceedings under Sec. 10 (2) (1) of the Act for his eviction alleging that he had committed wilful default in the payment of rent from January 1995 till January 1996 and had become liable to be evicted. Her case as set out in the R.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1996 before the Rent Controller, Karaikudi was as follows:

The revision petitioner became a tenant under her in respect of the property belonging to her bearing Door No. 82, Muthupattinam II Street, Karaikudi Nagar for a monthly rent of Rs. 60 computed according to the English Calendar month. He was a chronic defaulter. He was paying rent till October 1992. Thereafter taking advantage of her helplessness started creating evidence as if he had sent the rents. He filed R.C.O.P.No. 25 of 1993 purporting to be under Sec. 8(5) of the Act and obtained an ex parte order on 15.2.1994. Till December 1994 he was accmulating monthly rent and depositing the same into the court and thereafter from January 1995 till January 1996 he wilfully did not deposit the rent into court. This he did with ulterior motives and the eviction proceedings were therefore necessitated.

2. The revision petitioner resisted the eviction proceedings inter alia contending as follows:

The averments in the eviction petition were all imaginary and false. The order in R.C.O.P.No. 25 of 1993 should be read as part and parcel of his objections. The power of Attorney Holder with a view to purchase the property for a low price had instigated the filing of the eviction petition. The revision petitioner had filed O.S.No. 264 of 1993 before the District Munsif Court, Devakottai and obtained a decree to the effect that he should not be evicted from the properties, subject matter of the proceedings except by due process of law. A look at the proceedings in that suit would disclose the utter falsity of the claim of the respondent. The revision petitioner had been making arrangements for depositing the rent into court every month through his lawyer. In the meantime the rent control jurisdiction relating to Karaikudi till then functioning at Devakottai was transferred to the District Munsif Court, Karaikudi. But the records were not sent from Devakottai to Karaikudi and when the revision petitioner and his counsel made enquires, they were told that only after the receipt of the records the rent deposits could be made. The respondent had not taken any steps to withdraw the amounts in deposit. The revision petitioner had always been ready to pay the rent regularly. He had not wilfully defaulted in paying the rent. He was also ready to deposit the arrears. He had also filed a separate application for permission to deposit. The eviction proceedings had been initiated with ulterior motives to throw the revision petitioner out of the property and it was liable to be dismissed.

3. The learned Rent Controller accepted the case of the respondent and held that the revision petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rent, that he had not deposited the rent due for the period March 1995 to January 1996, till the filing of the eviction petition, that he had deliberately and wilfully not paid the monthly rent to the respondent, that he had committed wilful default. So holding by his order dated 30.4.1998 the learned Rent Controller, Karaikudi ordered eviction. He granted three months time to the revision petitioner to quit and deliver vacant possession to the respondent. The appeal in R.C.A.No. 10 of 1998 before the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge, Devakottai) by the revision petitioner was also dismissed on 22.10.1998 confirming the decision of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. The respondent had entered appearanc