Question of wilful default is a mixed question of law and fact.

Landlords in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 1993 on the file of Rent Controller/District Munsif, Madurai Taluk are revision petitioners.

2. Petitioners herein filed eviction petition against tenant on the ground that tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and also on the ground that the building is required for their bona fide own occupation.

3. According to the petitioners, scheduled building is a residential building, and the same was let out to tenant in the year 1964 by their mother. During the lifetime of their mother, she was receiving rent and on her death in 1980, petitioners are receiving rent. At present, the rate of rent is Rs.1,000 per month, and the tenancy is in accordance with English calendar month. Rent is also payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month. Landlords further allege that tenant is a chronic defaulter and he was never been paying rent regularly. Whenever rent is paid, printed receipt is issued and in the counterfoil also landlords used to get endorsement from tenant. It is further averred that tenant has failed to pay rent from September, 1989 to November, 1989 and there is no justification for not paying rent for the above three months. It is further said that the first petitioner got married on 4.12.1981 and he got two sons. Second petitioner also got married on 12.12.1986 and he got two daughters. From 1988 onwards there is misunderstanding between wives of petitioners 1 and 2 and it has become impossiblee for them to live together peacefully and second petitioner wanted to vacate the house where they are now residing i.e., Door No.34, Palmall Cross Street and occupy the scheduled building. They also wanted to divide the scheduled building and occupy the respective portions. It is alleged that petitioners are not owning any other residential building in Madurai Town. Even though several demands were made, tenant has not vacated, which necessitated filing of this eviction petition.

4. Inthe counter statement filed by the tenant the admitted the rental arrangement and that he has been in possession of the building from 1959 onwards. He also admitted that rate of rent is Rs.1,000 per month. According to tenant, it was never the habit of landlords to renovate the building and tenant had to do renovation spending a sum of Rs.1,50,000 and it also paid property tax for the period of six years which comes to Rs.15,600. He has also spent Rs.25,000 for erecting borewell in the demised building with the consent of landlords. It is said that when tenant tendered rent for the month of October, 1989, landlord postponed receipt of same stating that a sum of Rs.1,90,600 spent by him could be adjusted by him in the rent payable by tenant from October, 1989. Again tenant tendered rent for the month of November, 1989 and the same reply was repeated by landlords. Contrary to their promise, eviction petition has been filed as if tenant is wilful defaulter. In regard to rent payable for the month of September, 1989, petitioners have signed cash vouchers but not passed on receipt even though tenant insisted for such receipt. It is said that landlords have never taken care to keep the building in good condition. Tenant has incurred lot of expense to keep the building in good condition and in the year 1989 a borewell was dug by tenant for which he has incurred an expense of Rs.25,000. The allegation that tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent is therefore denied.

5. Claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide own occupation is also denied by tenant. The alleged misunderstanding between wives of petitioners 1 and 2 is false. According to tenant, all the petitioners are residing together as joint family and there is no misunderstanding between them. It is also alleged that landlords also filed R.C.O.P. 576 of 1989 for fixation of fair rent, and claim for eviction for bona fide own occupation also cannot be allowed. He further took a contention that claim for bona fide own occupation also not be sus