The court emphasized that the landlord is entitled to receive only one month's agreed rent by way of advance and any amount in excess is liable to be refunded to the tenant or adjusted towards rent at the option of the tenant.

C.R.P.(NPD) No.1290 of 2009

1. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order of eviction. The respondent is the landlady .

2. The respondent /landlady filed R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller, Nagapattinam seeking for eviction of the petitioners on the grounds of wilful default, act of waste, sub-letting, public nuisance and personal occupation. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on the grounds of wilful default, act of waste, sub-letting and public nuisance and however, rejected the same sought on the ground of personal occupation. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners herein filed appeal in R.C.A.Nos. 1 of 2008 . The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction on the grounds of wilful default, act of waste and sub-letting and however rejected the petition sought on the ground of public nuisance. Aggrieved against the same, C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1290 of 2009 is filed before this Court.

C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1291 of 2009

3. The petitioner is the tenant. He is aggrieved against the order rejecting his application filed under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. He filed R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller, Nagapattinam, seeking for deposit of rent into the court. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application. Further appeal filed by the petitioner/ tenant in R.C.A.No. 2 of 2008 also met with the same result. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1291 of 2009 is filed before this Court.

4. Let us first consider C.R.P.(NPD) No. 1290 of 2009 filed against the order of the eviction. Though the landlady filed eviction petition on five grounds, in pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, only three grounds, viz., wilful default, act of waste and sub-letting are the grounds accepted by the courts below based on which the eviction order was passed against the tenants concurrently. Thus, the following are the issues that arise for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.

(a) Whether the tenant has committed wilful default?

(b) Whether the tenant has committed act of waste?

(c) Whether the tenant has sub-let the premises without the consent of the landlady?

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side.

6. Regarding the first issue viz., wilful default:-

It is the case of the landlady that the first petitioner herein is the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.275 /- in respect of the petition mentioned property measuring 150 sq.ft. It is her case that from the month of May 2005 to July 2005 the first petitioner/tenant had committed default in payment of rent and such default is also wilful.

7. The case of the first petitioner /tenant is that the landlady had received an advance of Rs.10,000/- and the same is lying with her. When the first petitioner/tenant attempted to tender the rent in person for the months of May and June, the landlady refused to receive the same. Therefore, he sent it through Money Order on 5.7.2005 and the same was refused to be received. The landlady sent a notice under Ex.R4 on 14.7.2005 intimating the default in payment of rent. To the said notice, the tenant sent a reply under Ex.R5 dated 26.7.2005 calling upon the landlady to give bank details and also enclosed a Demand Draft for Rs.550/-representing two months rent. But the landlady returned the Demand Draft. Consequently, the tenant filed R.C.O.P.No. 20 of 2005 under Section 8(5) of the said Act on 5.9.2005. Therefore, there is no default much less wilful.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ tenant submitted that when the rent for the months of May and June was sought to be paid to the landlady, the same was refused and the money order sent thereafter was also returned. When the tenant further asked the landlady to furnish the bank details through Ex.R5 reply, also by enclosing a demand draft for Rs.550/- the landlady did not furnish those details and also