Wilful default in payment of rent by the tenant established.

The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P.No.58 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Uthagamandalam and the appellant in R.C.A.No.39 of 1990 on the file of the Appellate Authority (District Judge) Uthagamandalam. The respondent is the petitioner/ landlord in the proceedings before the Rent Control Court and the respondent before the Appellate Authority. The tenant suffered an order of eviction on two grounds namely, wilful default in the payment of rent as well as on the ground, of additional accommodation, rendered by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The correctness of the orders referred to above are questioned in this revision.

2. The agreed rent is Rs.230 p.m. from January, 1987 till January, 1988 the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent. The landlord issued a notice dated 14.12.1987, through his lawyer demanding the arrears of rent upto that date as well as for the vacant possession of the premises. The tenant sent a reply enclosing a cheque, for a sum of Rs.2,990 for the period commencing from 1.1.1987 to 31.1.1988, both months inclusive. Again the tenant had not paid the rent from 1.2.1988 to 30.10.1988, both months inclusive, amounting to Rs.2,070 and such non-payment is definitely wilful. The Rent Control petition itself came to be filed before the court on 22.11.1988. As far as the requirement of additional accommodation is concerned, the case of the landlord is that, he is carrying on business in grocery, both as a retail dealer and as a wholesale dealer in the municipal market at Ooty. The petitioner is having only one godown bearing Door No.l85-A in Ooty Town, where he is storing the articles and commodities. The tenant is in occupation of the godown bearing Door No.l85-B in the same ward namely, Ward No.9. The godown bearing Nos.l85-A and 185-B are in a single building consisting of two rooms: one room bearing No. 185-A and the other one bearing No. 185-B. Both the door numbers are inter-con- nected with each other and in the dividing wall there is a door providing access from one premises to the other and vice versa. Since the godown bearing No. 185-A, in the possession of the petitioner is not sufficient to meet his business requirements as the wholesale trader, and since he is carrying on his business in a large scale, it requires storage of large quantities of commodities. For want of sufficient big godown, the landlord is not able to meet his customers’ demands or expand his wholesale business, as he is not in a position to stock sufficient quantities of the commodities. Therefore, the premises is required for his additional accommodation. The tenant filed a counter as far as the default complained of against him is concerned, he would state that he is not in arrears of rent as alleged; no demand for rent was made by the petitioner and when the petitioner demanded the rent, it was paid immediately. The petitioner had suppressed the material facts and had allowed the rents to accumulate to create cause of action for filing the eviction petition. The rent mentioned in para 6 relates to the default period, which is being complained in the present case and since the rent for the period complained of has already been paid, there is no default, wilful or otherwise. The landlord has concealed the payment of rents. The rent was accumulated on account of the conduct of the landlord and he cannot take advantage of his own conduct to put forward a case on that ground. The tenant is a registered society and is a reputed Co-operative Society. Therefore there would not have been any necessity for the tenant to withhold the rent. As far as the requirement of additional accommodation is concerned, it is stated that the averments contained in the Rent Control Petition are nothing but tissues of lies; the immediate necessity of the landlord is a myth pressed into service without any rhyme or reason. The relative advantages and disa