No interfere required with the concurrent findings of Courts below.

1. Sivathanu Pillai, the petitioner herein, is the tenant, Subramaniam, the respondent herein, is the landlord.

2. Though the eviction petition was filed by the landlord/the respondent herein against the tenant/the petitioner herein, on the ground of own use and on the ground of wilful default, the Rent Controller rejected the first ground, but allowed the petition on the ground of wilful default. In the meantime, the tenant/the petitioner herein filed a petition before the Rent Controller under Sec.8(v) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for deposit of rent in the court and the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller.

3. The tenant challenging the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default and the order of dismissal of the petition under Sec.8(v) of the Act, filed appeals before the appellate authority, which in turn dismissed both the appeals. The petitioner, however, did not choose to challenge the order of dismissal of the petition to deposit the rent under Sec.8(v) of the Act before this Court, but has only chosen to file the present revision as against the confirmation of the order of eviction.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the materials available on record would not show that there is wilful default on the part of the petitioner/tenant in making payment of rent, inasmuch as the petitioner, immediately on receipt by M.O. which was refused and returned by the landlord on two occasions. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a notice to the landlord to specify the bank to deposit the rent and as there was no response, the petitioner, filed a petition to deposit the rent under Sec.8(v) of the Act and as such, the conclusion arrived at by both the authorities below, despite the genuine efforts taken by the petitioner to make the payment of rent cannot be said to be based on correct reasonings.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord would state that there was arrears of rent for 19 months and after notice demanding arrears of rent for 19 months, only two months arrears was sent and so it was returned and that in the absence of any explanation for the non-payment of rent for 19 months arrears, the authorities below have correctly concluded that there is a wilful default on the part of the petitioner, who is liable to be evicted.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side.

7. According to the landlord, there is arrears of rent from June, 1986 to January, 1988. Even as per Exs.R-2 to R-5 produced on the side of the tenant, the rents from 15.5.1983 to 14.6.1986 were paid by the tenant to the landlord.

8. According to the tenant, the rents for the further period were paid and the receipts were written in some other book, which was kept by the landlord, who did not return the same to the tenant after making the endorsement. But, the original receipt book which contains Exs.R-2 to R-5 would reveal that there are blank pages. Therefore, there was no necessity for having another book for making endorsement with reference to the receipt of rents for further period. According to the tenant, the said second receipt book contains the endorsement relating to the payment of rents for subsequent period. As such, the tenant alone has to establish the said aspect by producing the book.

9. The tenant would state that the said book was handed over to the landlord by one Thangappan, his agent, for getting the endorsement regarding the receipt of the rents. But the said Thangappan was not examined. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that there was no arrears of rent from June, 1986 to January, 1988, it cannot be said that the tenants plea that there is no wilful default is acceptable.

10. As a matter of fact, this aspect had been dealt with by both the authorities below in detail and the plea of the tenant had rightly been rejected. It is also made clear as observed in the judgment