Wilful default in making payment of rent by tenant held proved.

1. Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1992, on the file of Rent Controller (District Munsif), Kumbakonam, is the revision petitioner.

2. Landlord sought eviction of tenant/revision petitioner on three grounds, namely, (1) Default in payment of rent from 1.4.1991 to 31.10.1992, i.e., for a period of 18 months at the rate of Rs.70 per month. According to the landlord, the said default is wilful. (2) The building in question is required bona fide for own use and occupation of the landlord; and (3) The building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction.

3. As per Ex.A-13, a notice dated 25.8.1992 was served on the tenant in terming him that he has committed wilful default in payment of rent. For this, Ex.A-14 reply dated 1.9.1992 was sent. It is further averred that in spite of the notice, tenant did not pay the rent. It is said that the landlords son is serving Army and he is due for retirement from service, and the building is very much needed for the landlords family. It is also averred that the building requires immediate demolition and reconstruction since it is a dilapidated condition. It is more than 75 years old.

It is constructed of mud wall. Landlord has sufficient means to put up a new construction. He has also undertaken that he will take necessary steps for demolition and complete the reconstruction within three months from the date of taking possession. He has also taken steps to get the plan approved by the local authority.

4. In the counter-statement filed by tenant, revision petitioner, he denied alt these allegations. According to him, the original rent was Rs.10 at the time when he took the building on rent in the year 1958. It was increased from time to time, and the present rate of rent is Rs.70 per mensem. According to him, the landlord wanted to sell the building, and, therefore, he was asked not to pay the rent. He is not a defaulter muchless wilful defaulter. Regarding the requirement for bona fide own use and occupation, and demolition and re-construction also, those grounds are seriously disputed by tenant.

5. Rent Controller, as per order dated 14.3.1997 dismissed the petition. Rent Controller held that the landlord wanted to sell the building to the petitioner herein, and it was on the request of the landlord rent was not paid and, therefore, it is not a case of supine indifference on the part of the tenant in not paying the rent. He further came to conclusion that once the landlord has expressed a desire to sell the building, his subsequent change of mind that he wants to occupy the building is not bona fide. For the same reason, the ground of demolition and reconstruction was also found against.

6. Against the said findings, landlord filed R.C.A.No.10 of 1997. The Appellate Authority, after re-appreciating the evidence, allowed the eviction petition on all grounds. The Appellate Authority was of the view that the contention that the tenant did not pay rent only at the instance of landlord is not fully correct. The landlord is residing at Delhi. The Appellate Authority also found that there was some suggestion to sell the house and for the month of April, 1991 alone, tenant was not asked to pay the rent, and the same was allowed to be retained by him. But, thereafter, there was no representation by landlord that the tenant need not pay the rent. At any rate, after Ex.A-13 legal notice, informing the tenant about the default, there is no excuse for the tenant to contend that he is not a wilful default. No attempt was made by tenant to pay rent at that time, and the subsequent payment before the rent controller will not absolve him being termed as a wilful defaulter. With regard to the claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for own occupation, the Appellate Authority held that there was some suggestion on the part of the landlord to sell the property. But he changed his mind since his son who was employed in Military was likely to be transferred and he was also about to re