1. This Civil Revision Petition is focussed to get set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2012 passed in R.C.A.No.5 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, confirming the order dated 12.04.2010 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Rent Controller, viz., the revision petitioner as tenant and the respondent as landlady.

3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, would run thus:

The landlady filed the R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 for eviction of the tenant under Sections 10 (3)(a) and 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground of personal occupation and wilful default in paying the rent. Whereupon the tenant resisted the same. The landlady filed I.A.No.2 of 2008 invoking Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, thereon the learned Rent Controller passed a conditional order for deposit of the rents, but that was not complied with by the tenant. Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction, as against which the R.C.A.No.5 of 2011 was filed by the tenant. Whereas the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the said R.C.A., confirming the order of the Rent Controller.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders passed by both the fora below, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant on various grounds.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cri de coeur of the tenant by placing reliance on the grounds of revision that the Rent Control Appellate Authority without adverting to the fact that pending appeal, a sum of Rs.24,500/-(Rupees Twenty Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) was paid by the tenant towards arrears of rent to the Counsel for the landlady, simply ordered eviction; absolutely, there is no wilful element involved in the non-payment of the rents; the tenant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and hence, he became immobilised and there was communication gap between himself and his Advocate, whereupon pending litigation, there was such arrears got allegedly accumulated, for which the tenant should not be mulcted with the liability of having evicted.

6. Whereas in a bid to slap down and pulverise the arguments as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the learned Counsel for the respondent/landlady, would develop his arguments thus:

As on the date of filing of the R.C.O.P., there were arrears of rent for a period of three months. No steps were also taken by the tenant to deposit the rents promptly pending litigation. The records bespeak that ever since March 2008 till June 2009, the rents were not paid or deposited. Whereupon, an application was filed invoking Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and in that application, the Court passed the conditional order, but even that order was not complied with, whereupon the eviction was ordered. Subsequently, the appeal in R.C.A.No.5 of 2011 was filed with some delay and after condoning the said delay, the appeal was numbered. During the pendency of the appeal only, the arrears of rent for a period of 32 months was paid by the tenant to the Counsel for the landlady and that itself is indicative of the fact that there was wilful default in paying the rents as per the dicta found exemplified in various decisions of this Court as well as the Honourable Apex Court. The contentions on the side of the tenant that he met with an accident etc., are only forthcoming in the course of this Civil Revision Petition and that it cannot be taken as an excuse for wilful default involved in the payment of the rents by the tenant in favour of the landlady.

7. The point for consideration is as to whether the findings