Strict compliance with statutory provisions and the prescribed procedure for rent deposit is essential for tenants under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 20.3.12 passed by the VII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCA No.643 of 2010 confirming the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCOP No.1272 of 2009, this revision petition has been filed.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller.

3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts in a broad stroke could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The respondent herein filed the RCOP for evicting the revision petitioner herein/tenant, invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), on the ground of 'wilful default'. Counter was filed and the O.P.was resisted by the tenant.

(ii) During enquiry, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P4. The tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R5.

(iii) After hearing both sides, the Rent Controller ordered eviction, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate authority, confirming the order of the Rent Controller.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of the respective authorities concerned, this revision has been focussed on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant, by placing reliance on the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth his arguments thus:

(i) The appellate authority under the Rent Control Act, namely, VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Rent Control Appeals, as the matter was pertaining to VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Since VI Judge, Court of Small Causes was in-charge of the VII Court, he disposed of the appeal and as such, the judgement passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is one without jurisdiction.

(ii) In fact, this is the second round of litigation initiated by the landlord, after meeting with his waterloo in getting evicted the tenant, by initiating, at the first instance, the rent control proceedings on the same ground of 'wilful default'.

(iii) It so happened that the tenant, by way of abundant caution, paid 10% more than the agreed rent, but it was refused by the landlord, whereupon, the tenant was in quandary and eight months elapsed thereafter; taking undue advantage of the piquant situation, the landlord simply initiated the second round of litigation by filing RCOP on the same ground of 'wilful default'.

(iv) Both the Courts below failed to understand that there is no wilful element in not paying the rent and it was because of the conduct of the landlord, apparently it appears as though the tenant had not paid the rent for eight months, as on the date of filing of the RCOP.

(v) Pendente lite, the tenant paid the arrears without any default, however, without considering the genuine intention of the tenant in paying the rent, both the Courts below simply ordered eviction on the ground of 'wilful default' in paying the rents, warranting interference in revision.

6. In a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguements as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would pyramid his arguements, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(a) As on the date of filing of the RCOP, there was eight months arrears of rent; without adhering to Section 8(5) of the Act, the tenant cannot be heard to put forth his rebarbative averments in the counter as though the landlord was at fault in receiving the rent.

(b) The law is well settled that the tenant cannot be heard to contend that because the landlord refused to receive the rent, he was justified in not paying the rent and that too, for eight months.

(c) The appellate authority, namely, the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, was in