The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant's failure to pay rent, both during the default period and subsequent to the filing of an eviction petition, constitutes wilful default under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act.

1. The revision petitioner is the tenant. He is aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller confirmed by the Appellate Authority on the ground of wilful default.

2. The Respondent/Landlord filed R.C.O.P.No. 179 of 2009 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai, seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the grounds of wilful default and owner's occupation. The said RCOP was filed on 22.01.2009. The rent payable by the tenant is Rs.3,225/- per month. He also paid an advance amount of Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security deposit. The default period stated in the Eviction Petition is from 01.07.2008 to 22.01.2009, being the date of filing the Eviction Petition. The learned Rent Controller, while allowing the Eviction Petition on the ground of wilful default, dismissed the same in respect of the other ground viz., owner's occupation, by his order, dated 08.12.2009. The petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A.No. 1 of 2010 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority also confirmed order of eviction on the ground of wilful default through the Judgment, dated 03.07.2012. Aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the authorities below, on the ground of wilful default, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though there was a default between 01.07.2008 to 31.12.2008, the same cannot be treated as wilful default in view of the fact that admittedly the Landlord was in possession of an advance amount of Rs.25,000/- and consequently, he is not entitled to file Eviction Petition on the ground of wilful default. He further submitted that the petitioner in fact filed R.C.O.P.No. 1322 of 2009 under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, seeking permission to deposit the rent in to the Court. Even though, the said RCOP came to be dismissed by the Court, on 08.12.2010, for want of certified copy only, the tenant has not filed any revision against the said order so far. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel that there is no wilful default on the part of the tenant in paying the rent.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Landlord submitted that the tenant has committed wilful default from 01.07.2008 onwards and he has filed Section 8 application only on 02.07.2009, that too, after receiving the notice in R.C.O.P.No. 179 of 2009. Therefore, the conduct of the tenant would show that there is no bona fide on his part. He further submitted that when the tenant's R.C.O.P.No. 1322 of 2009 came to be dismissed on 08.10.2010, he has not chosen to file any revision, challenging the said order so far. Moreover, the subsequent conduct of the tenant in not paying the periodical monthly rent either during the pendency of the RCOP or during the pendency of the appeal or even during the pendency of this Civil Revision Petition up to this date would disclose the supine indifference being shown by the petitioner/tenant against the Landlord in paying the monthly rent. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that retaining of the advance amount itself cannot be taken as a defence by the petitioner/tenant to contend that there is no wilful default.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submission, relied on AIR 1996 SC 1214 (K.Narasimha Rao Vs. T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed) to contend that the tenant cannot be said to be wilful default, if the Landlord has not adjusted the advance amount towards the rental arrears. He also relied on another decision reported in 2012 (5) CTC 283 (Latha and others Vs. L.Thangaraj) to substantiate the same contention.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on a decision of this Court in K.Karuppiah Vs. B.Kubendran reported in 2009 (2) CTC 595 to contend tha