Wilful default in payment of rent means a deliberate and intentional default knowing fully well the legal consequences thereof. It must be an act done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly; thoughtlessly, needlessly or inadvertently.

1. These two revisions are by the tenant.

2. The subject matter and parties are the same in both the revisions.

3. C.R.P. No. 1836 of 1989 arises from the order in R.C.O.P. No. 359 of 1984, on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Coimbatore. C.R.P. No. 1837 of 1989 arises from the order in R.C.O.P. No. 338 of 1982, on the file of the same Court.

4. R.C.O.P. No. 338 of 1982 was filed by the landlord, respondent herein, for the purpose of eviction on the grounds of wilful default in the payment of rent, change of user, and also on the ground that he requires the premises in question for additional accommodation, for his business.

5. The default that is mentioned in R.C.O.P. No. 338 of 1982 is mentioned in paragraph 7 of the eviction petition. In the said paragraph, he has stated;

“The respondent is very irregular in the payment of the rents. As on 1.5.1981, the respondent was in arrears of rent, to the extent of Rs. 5000/- and therefore, on 1.5.81, the respondent has executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 5000/- in favour of the petitioner, agreeing to repay the same, with interest at 18% per annum. In spite of the lawyers notice, dated 10-3-82 (which was acknowledged by him, but no reply) the respondent has not paid the said sum of Rs. 5000/-. The respondent has paid the rents for the tenancy months of August 1981, only on 22-10-81 and the rent for the tenancy month of September 1981 only on 1.2.81. So also, the rent for the tenancy month of October 1981 has been paid only on 1.12.1981 and the rent for the tenancy month of March 1982 has been paid only on 21.5.1982. Thus, the respondent is very indifferent in payment of the rents on the due date and he is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of the rents as contemplated in Section 10(2)(i) of the Act”.

6. According to the petitioner, the tenancy month is according to English calendar and the rate of rent is Rs. 750/-. The rent is to be paid on the first of every succeeding month. The said Eviction Petition was filed on 17.9.1982.

7. R.C.O.P. No. 359 of 1984 was filed in November 1984 only on the ground of default in payment of rent, i.e., for the period from the month of November 1983 till 31.10.1984 (for 12 months). Thus, the respondent has stated that a sum of Rs. 9000/- was due towards rent. Except for a paltry sum of Rs. 1500/- paid on 30.7.1984, no other amount was paid in spite of demand and a lawyers notice issued on 17.10.1984.

8. The tenant opposed the eviction petition, R.C.O.P. No. 338 of 1982, contending that he is not a defaulter in payment of rent, that there is no change of user, and that the claim of the landlord for additional accommodation is lacking in good faith.

9. The tenant further contended that the promissory note dated 1.5.1981 was executed not for any default committed by him, but he borrowed the amount for his business purposes, and that the same has been discharged.

10. In the counter to the second petition, i.e., R.C.O.P. No. 359 of 1984, the main contention of the tenant is that when the first petition for eviction is pending consideration, a second petition for the same purpose is not maintainable and is barred under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. He does not answer the allegations regarding the default in payment of rent.

11. Both the petitions were tried jointly and evidence was recorded in R.C.O.P. No. 338 of 1982. On the side of the petitioner, Exs. A-1 to A-39 were marked and the landlord examined himself as P.W.

1. The tenant examined himself as R.W. 1, and Exs. B-1 to B-12 were marked on his side.

12. The Rent Controller, as per order dated 17-2-1988, dismissed the petitions. The Rent Controller held that the promissory note executed by the tenant on 1-5-1981 is not towards arrears of rent, and the execution of the prommisory note cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of finding out whether the tenant has committed default in paymen