Mere non-filing of application u/s 8(5) would not amount to wilful default.

1. Tamil Nadu Motors, represented by Gowtham, the petitioner herein is the tenant. Aggrieved over the order of the Appellate Authority ordering eviction of the petitioner by reversing the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the petition for eviction filed by Lakshmi, the landlady, the respondent herein, the present civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

2. The landlady, the respondent herein filed a petition under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for evicting the tenant from the petition premises on the grounds of wilful default and of keeping the petition premises under lock and key. The Rent Controller on consideration of the evidence oral and documentary adduced by both the parties, rejected those grounds holding that there is no wilful default and the premises was not kept locked. Aggrieved by the same, the landlady filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Authority though did not disturb the finding of the Rent Controller with reference to the ground of keeping the petition premises under lock and key, held that the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default and allowed the appeal. Hence, this revision.

3. Mr.Suresh Kumar, the counsel for the petitioner/tenant would make the following submissions:

(i)Admittedly, the tenant, the petitioner herein sent the notice dated 14.6.1991 calling upon the landlady, the respondent herein to name the Bank and account number to which the rent has to be deposited. Despite the receipt of the notice on 18.6.1991, the landlady, the respondent herein did not choose to rely the notice, but rushed to the Rent Controller to file an eviction petition on 19.6.1991 with an ulterior motive.

(ii)The tenant having received no reply from the landlady for the notice Ex.P-9, dated 14.6.1991 issued by him, sent the entire arrears of rent for six months by money order, the coupon is marked as Ex.R-1, which was returned with an endorsement ‘party is out of station’.

(iii)The tenant also went to the house of the landlady and tried to hand over the amount to her, but the said amount was not received by her. When the tenant has taken all the steps to pay the arrears for six months to the landlady when the Agent did not turn up to collect the amount, the mere default in making the payment of six months’ arrears cannot be construed to be wilful default.

(iv)The Rent Controller took into consideration various aspects and found that there is no wilful default. But, this well-considered judgment has been disturbed by the Appellate Authority without going into the reasons given by the Rent Controller for concluding that there is no wilful default, and eviction was ordered simply on the ground that the tenant did not resort to the filing of an application under Sec.8(5) of the Act by depositing the rental arrears into court holding that default in making the payment of the rental arrears without resorting to the filing the application under Sec.8(5) of the Act would automatically be construed to be wilful default.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Krishnamachari, the learned counsel for the landlady, the respondent herein, in justification of the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, would strenuously contend that the order of eviction by the Appellate Authority is a well considered one, as the same was on the basis of various decisions of this Court. He would also point out that in the absence of the explanation as to why the six months’ delay was caused in making the payment of the rental arrears, the court has not other alternative except to come to the conclusion that the tenant defaulted in the payment of arrears wilfully and as such, the finding given by the Appellate Authority may not be interfered with by this Court, that too, in the revision.

5. The counsel for both the parties would cite several authorities with reference to the well established rule to be taken int