Entire arrears paid immediately by the tenant on receipt of notice of eviction.

This revision petition is filed as against the order of the Appellate Authority, Tiruchirapalli in C.M.A. No. 29 of 1974. The landlady has preferred this revision petition. The Rent Controller in H.R.C.O.P. No. 243 of 1972 held in her favour by holding that there has been a wilful default, in the payment of rents for nearly 33 months and that the tenants had ceased to occupy the premises and therefore are bound to surrender vacant possession of the premises within 2 months from the date of the order.

2. The landlady being the petitioner herein, filed the petition claiming that the schedule premises is a non-residential one and it was leased out on 16th June, 1966 in favour of the first respondent, for carrying on a business in cycle spare parts, on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. It is stated further there in, that till February, 1968, first respondent was carrying on business in cycle spare parts. But afterwards, the landlady was informed that the business in cycle spare parts is to be carried on in another premises and that the schedule premises will be utilised for the sale of steel furnitures to which she consented and the name and style of the business is that of the second respondent. This business was also stopped in August, 1969 and since then the premises had been kept without being used for any purposes and therefore the landlady sent a notice through her advocate under Ex. A. 9 on 19th May, 1972 to which a reply was received under Ex. A-10 dated 8th July, 1972 along with a cheque for a sum of Rs. 4,950 being the rent payable by the tenants for the period, September, 1969 till date of notice. Hence, she had asked for eviction on the ground of wilful default and for failure to utilise the premises for the purpose for which it has been leased out.

3. This claim was opposed by the tenants stating that no doubt the premise had been taken on lease on 16th September, 1966, but after the rent was paid for the mouth of September, 1969. the landlady had told the tenant that she will receive the amount in lump sum and therefore monthly rents were not paid for 33 months till the demand notice was received under Ex. A-9 and immediately thereafter the entire rent had been paid and subsequently the monthly rents are being paid, and therefore, there was no wilful default. About the cessation of business, it was contended that the premises was being used for the business carried on by the respondents and the claim to the contrary is false.

4. Mr. B. Raghaviah, learned counsel for the petitioner landlady, strenuously pleads that the appellate authority had not properly comprehended about the wilful default, when admittedly for 33 months rent had not been paid by the tenant. Fortunately in this case, there is no dispute about not-payment of rent for the period in question. The version of the tenants is that after the rent was paid for September, 1969, the landlady had told the tenants that he will receive the amount in lump sums and hence the rents were not paid on due dates. This claim is stoutly denied by the landlady and her husband, who has been examined as P.W. 1 and who is said to be a practising lawyer, has stated in his evidence that the property belongs to his wife, and that he has been looking after the affairs regard ing collection of rents, and that both of them reside in the upstairs portion and his office is also located in the upstairs portion of the premises. He states that at no point of time, either himself or his wife had agreed to receive the rents in lump sum, and inspite of demands, the rent was not paid for 33 months.

5. Mr. P. Ragaviah, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 extensively contends that there is no satisfactory evidence about any agreement to receive the rents in lump sum, and even if it be so, it would not have been for any indefinite period and the tenants did not say as to what was the agreement about receipt of rents in lump sum. It is not as if the landl