To establish wilful default in paying rent, there must be a deliberate and intentional failure to pay rent with full knowledge of the legal consequences. Mere default in payment of rent does not constitute wilful default. The requirement for personal occupation must exist at the time of filing the petition and continue until the final decree or order for eviction. Subsequent events can be considered if they show that the requirement no longer exists.

1. Animadverting upon the order 23.7.2009 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority(VIII Small Causes Court) Chennai, in R.C.A.No.581 of 2007 confirming the order dated 14.6.2007 passed by the XII Judge, Court of Small Cause, Chennai, in RCOP No.255 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenant.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

(a) The respondent/landlady filed the RCOP No.255 of 2007 invoking Sections 10(2)(ii) (b), 10(2)(iii), 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,(herein after referred to as the Act for short) on the following grounds:

(i) The tenant used the premises concerned for a purpose other than that for which it was leased;

(ii) The tenant committed the acts of waste;

(iii) The tenant committed wilful default in paying the rents;

(iv) The premises concerned is required for the ‘personal occupation’.

(b) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on all the grounds.

(c) As against the said order, the tenant preferred appeal in RCA No.581 of 2007. The appellate authority held that the eviction ordered on the ground of waste was not tenable. However, it confirmed the order of eviction on the other three grounds, set out supra.

(d) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority in ordering eviction, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

3. Placing reliance on the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would develop his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(i) The Courts below failed to take into account the fact that the tenant at no point of time admitted that the demised premises was converted for the purpose of conducting tuition centre.

(ii) The averment at paragraph No.4 of the counter filed by the tenant was misunderstood virtually by both the Courts below and they assumed and presumed as though the tenant admitted that the demised premises was converted into a tuition centre, when in fact, the tenant only pointed out that one of his family members, namely, the daughter of the tenant, who is an educated lady was taking tuition for the students and by no stretch of imagination the said averment could be taken as admission regarding different use of the demised premises.

(iii) The certificate of postings relied on by the tenant by no stretch of imagination could be ignored by any Court for the reason that legal presumption is available as to the genuineness of such document.

(iv) Even though the landlady contended that pre-litigation notice as well as telegram was sent by her to the tenant, absolutely there is no evidence in that regard. There is only a vague reference in the averments in the RCOP about the despatch of the letter and telegram.

(v) It is an admitted fact that once in two months rents were paid by the tenant to the landlady and incommensurate with that alone, every two months cheques were issued, but those cheques were not returned by the landlady, which would indicate that the landlady deliberately wanted to raise her accusative finger as against the tenant as though she was a wilful defaulter.

(vi) There is nothing to indicate that the employer of the landlady directed her to vacate the official quarters and there is also no proof to evince and evidence that she voluntarily retired from the Port service.

(vii) The subsequent events also have not been placed before the Courts below.

(viii) The RCOP was filed in the year 2007 and there is nothing to indicate as to where actually the landlady is now staying and how her requirement under the personal occupation still subsists.

(ix) It is also the contention of the tenant that the landlady is having one other building in the same City and that was not rebutted by her.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the tenant would pray for set