Tenant not held guilty for wilful default but guilty for act of waste.

1. The tenants who suffered order of eviction before the authorities below have filed the above revisions.

2. The landlords are the owners of the shops of the premises in which the petitioners are the tenants. The landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1982 for eviction under Secs.10(2)(i) and 14(l)(a) of the Act 18 of 1960. The said R.C.O.P. relates to shop Nos.8A and 8B situate in Kamaraj Street,Sirkali Town. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1982 to evict the tenant with respect to shop Nos.8C and 8D under Secs.10(2)(i) and 14(1)(a) and 10(2)(iii) of the Act. The respondent also filed R.C.O.P. No.26 of 1982 to evict the tenant with respect to shop Nos.8E and 8F of the said premises under Secs. 10(2)(i) and (iii) and 14(1)(a) of the Act. The respondent has also filed R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1984 against the tenant with respect to shop Nos.8C and 8D of the said premises, under Sec.10(2)(iii) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller, Sirkali, accepting the case of the landlord on all grounds, except the ground raised under Sec.10(2)(iii) of the Act in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1982, ordered eviction. Aggrieved against the same, the tenants filed R.C.A.Nos.16, 14, 17 and 22 of 1985 respectively. The learned Appellate Authority/Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the Appeals. Aggrieved against the same, the tenants have filed the C.R.P.Nos.2990, 2989, 2991 and 2986 respectively.

3. With respect to the requirement of the landlord under Sec.14(1)(a) of the Act, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord brought to my notice that with respect to other shops, the landlord filed eviction proceedings along with the abovesaid proceedings, and those tenants filed C.R.P.Nos.2986, 2988, 2992 and 2993 of 1986. In the said revisions, this Court confirmed the findings of the authorities below, regarding the ground raised under Sec. 14(1)(a) of the Act, by the order dated 23.10.1986. Since the said ground is applicable to all the cases in common, 1 have to confirm the order of the authorities below in this regard. So, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on the ground raised under Sec.14(l)(a) of the Act, is hereby confirmed.

4. The remaining grounds to be decided are wilful default in payment of rent by the tenants and acts of waste by opening the doorway in the partition wall in between the two shops.

5. In R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1982, it is the case of the landlord that the tenant has not paid rent from October, 1981 to August, 1982. There is no dispute about the quantum of monthly rent. Though the landlord has stated in paragraph 9 of the eviction petition that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent, and such default is a wilful one, the tenant filed a counter stating that there are no arrears of rent much less any wilful default. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord, the tenant has not given the details as to when he paid the rent and what is the basis for such statement. In the evidence, the tenant has deposed that there were business dealings between him and the landlord and so he adjusted the rent from the amount payable by the landlord towards the business transaction. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant has brought to my notice that summons were served in R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1982 on the same date when a sum of Rs. 1,200 was deposited, and the receipt was marked as Ex.R-21. He has also brought to my notice that the Appellate Authority has not given any finding with respect to the wilful intention on the part of the tenant for non-payment of the rent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice that the Appellate Authority has not even discussed about the case in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1982 in his order. According to the landlord, the tenant failed to pay four months’ rent, i.e., from May, 1982 to August, 1982. In the counter, the tenant has stated that the arrear