The concept of wilful default in the context of non-payment of rent and its implications under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

1. Inveighing the order dated 18.09.2009 passed in RCA No.356 of 2008 by the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, in confirming the order dated 22.04.2008 passed in RCOP No.1063 of 2007 by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenants.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

(i) The respondent/landlord filed RCOP No.1063 of 2007 seeking eviction invoking sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(B) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the grounds of wilful default in paying the rent and different user. Whereupon, the matter was contested.

(ii) On the side of the landlord, he examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the tenants, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs. R1 and R2 were marked. Ultimately the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction only on the ground of wilful default, but not on the ground of different user, as against which appeal was filed by the tenants for nothing but to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of both the Courts below, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenants placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(a) Both the Courts below fell into error in not taking into account the fact that there was no wilful element involved in payment of rent. In fact, while filing the RCOP during the month of June 2007, the landlord went to the extent of describing as though there was wilful default in paying rent during the month of May 2007 also, forgetting for a moment that the rent for the month of May was payable at any time during the month of June.

(b) All cases of default will not amount to cases of wilful default and the subtle distinction was not taken into account.

(c) There is ample evidence to show that the landlord of the respondent herein, who happened to be the landlord in respect of the ground area of the demised premises sent communication to the petitioners/tenants herein to the effect that they shall not pay rent to the respondent herein, as unauthorisedly the respondent herein had put up superstructure and that he was facing eviction proceedings in the regular original suit. Apprehending that there would be danger to the petitioners if such original landlords mandates were not complied with, the revision petitioner was hesitating to pay rent to the respondent. In the process of such hesitation only there was some apparent default in payment of rent, even though there was no wilful default in payment of rent.

(d) The tenants on receipt of RCOP notice promptly tendered the rent on the first hearing itself, which cannot be denied by the respondent herein. As such the very bona fide act of the revision petitioners would clearly evince and evidence that they had no deliberate intention not to pay rent to the respondent. Even after the filing of the RCOP, the landlord expressed his mala fide attitude in not receiving the rent. Whereupon, the revision petitioners were driven to the extent of depositing the rent by initiating proceedings under Section 8(5) of the Act. As such, the conduct of the landlord pendente lite would speak about his spite and malice as against the tenants herein to evict them from the demised premises.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners prays for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below and for dismissal of the RCOP.

5. Per contra, by way of torpedoing and pulverising the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioners/tenants, the learned counsel for the landlord would advance his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:

(a) Indubitably and indisputably, unar