Irregular and delayed rent payments can constitute wilful default, and court deposits without notice to the landlord do not constitute valid rent payments.

1. The tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 42 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller,. Nagercoil is the revision petitioner. After filing this revision, both the landlady and tenant died and their legal representatives are impleaded as additional petitioners and additional respondent

2. The landlady filed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful default in paying the rent. The material averments in the eviction petition could be summarised as thus:

The tenant took the scheduled premises on oral lease from the landladys husband late S. Chockahngam from 17.10.1960. At that time, the monthly rent was Rs. 15/-. The respondent paid rent upto and inclusive of 11.2.1970 to the landladys husband and after his death, the rent was being paid to the landlady. Whenever rent is paid, the receipt was also being issued to the tenant. The rent from 12.2.1970 was defaulted and that compelled the landlady to issue a lawyers notice on 9.2.1972. The tenant accepted the same and agreed that he will pay the rent arrears and also surrender schedule property shortly and requested that no eviction proceedings be initiated against him. At that time, the rent upto 12.1.1971 was also paid. Since the property tax for the building was enhanced by the local authority, the landlady wanted enhancement in the rent and the rent was enhanced to Rs. 20/- by mutual consent. From 13.1.1971, the tenant was paying Rs. 20/- per month and he paid rent up to 14.12.1973. Thereafter, he committed default in paying rent. The landlady by herself and through her brother demanded the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the building with rent arrears. The tenant was evading payment and also to surrender possession. A notice was issued on 15.10.1976 demanding rent arrears and also to vacate the premises. Long after receipt of the notice, a reply was sent on 28.12.1976 denying the allegations therein. In the meanwhile, the rent arrears also increased to a huge amount. In the reply notice, the tenant contended that he has paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to landladys husband and there was an oral agreement to adjust the rent in the loan paid by him. Therefore, the landlady initiated H.R.C. No. 18 of 1977 before the Rent Controller, Nagercoil seeking eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. In that proceedings, the tenant alleged that he paid Rs. 1,000/- to late S. Chockalingam and also contended that the landlady agreed to adjust the said amount towards the rent due from him. The Rent Controller accepted the allegations of the tenant and dismissed the eviction petition. Though the matter was taken in appeal and revision, the same was also dismissed.

3. It is the further case of the landlady that after the disposal of the revision in C.R.P. No. 1993 of 1979, the respondent did not pay regularly and he used to deposit rent once in three or four months. The conduct of the tenant shows that he is not interested in paying the rent in time and he can deposit the same only according to his convenience. In paragraph No. 8 of the eviction petition, the landlady has also given the schedule of payments which shows that various amounts were deposited in Court once in four months or five months. According to the landlady, the non-payment of rent in time is intentional and, therefore, the tenant has committed wilful default in paying the rent.

4. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner-tenant, he admitted the rental arrangement and also the earlier eviction proceedings. In paragraph No. 6 of the counter, he stated that the details mentioned in paragraph No. 8 of the petition is misleading and is not correct and the tenant is regularly paying the rent. According to him, he is not a defaulter and much less a wilful defaulter. He prayed for the dismissal of the eviction petition.

5. On the above pleadings, the parties went on trial. On the side of the landlady, P.W.I was examined and the petitioner got himself exa