1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 18.1.2012 passed by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.194 of 2009 confirming the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.192 of 2008, this civil revision petition is 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 absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:

(i) The respondent herein/landlord filed the RCOP.No.192 of 2008, invoking Section 10 (2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking eviction on the ground of 'wilful default' precisely averring that there was non-payment of rent with effect from February 2007 to December 2007, so to say, for a period of 11 months at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per month.

(ii) The matter was contested.

(iii) During enquiry, the landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. The petitioner No.2 herein/tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R6.

(iv) Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of 'wilful default' in paying the rents.

(v) As against the said order, the tenants preferred the appeal R.C.A.No.194 of 2009 for nothing but to be dismissed by the rent control appellate authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied the order and judgement of the respective Courts below, this civil revision petition is focussed by the tenants on various grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants, placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his arguments, by pointing out that even though the tenants could not produce rent receipts evidencing payment from February 2007 to July 2007, yet they could produce money order receipts showing that they paid rent from August 2007 onwards; however, the Courts below held that there was wilful default in paying the rents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants would also submit that it is an admitted fact that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the tenants to the landlord towards advance and the monthly rent was only Rs.1400/-. As per law, more than a months' rent should be refunded by the landlord from out of the advance amount or he should adjust the excess rental advance towards the arrears of rent and accordingly if viewed, from February 2007 till July 2007 there could be no 'wilful default' at all.

7. Earlier the learned counsel for the respondent herein/landlord appeared and argued that there was no specific request from the tenants for such adjustment of excess advance amount towards the arrears. Subsequently, time was granted for him to produce decisions, but he has not produced any precedents to buttress or fortify his view.

8. On the other hand, in this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants produced the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court:

(i) The decision of the Supreme Court reported 1996(II) CTC 78 – K.NARASIMHARAO V. T.M.NASIMUDDIN AHMED;

(ii) The decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1989)2 Supreme Court Cases 686 – MODERN HOTEL, GUDUR V. K.RADHAKRISHNAIAH AND OTHERS;

(iii) The decision of this Court reported in (2000)II M.L.J.202 – MAHALINGAM V. PICHAIAMMAL;

(iv) The decision of this Court reported in 2010(3) C.L.T.880 – B.VENKATESAN V. M.K.SELVARAJ.

9. The point for consideration is as to whether the findings by both the Courts below that there was 'wilful default' in payment of rent by the tenants is tenable and that too, in the wake of admitted advance amount remaining with the landlord?

10. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, cited on the petitioners/tenants' side and certain excerpts from