The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant's conduct, including the reasons given for the default and the payment of arrears before the first hearing, did not absolve her from proving that the default was not willful. The court emphasized that each case must be considered on its own merits and circumstances, and that there cannot be any general rule of law to the effect that the default is not willful once the tenant pays the rent on or before the first hearing date of rent control proceedings.

1. The revision petitioner is the landlord. The respondent is the tenant. The landlord is aggrieved against the judgment and decree made by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in dismissing his application for eviction sought on the ground of willful default.

2.The case of the landlord/petitioner is as follows:

The respondent's mother took the petition mentioned property on lease on 05.02.1982 for non residential purpose to run a book stall. Thereafter, with the consent of her mother, the respondent became the tenant under the petitioner on 05.01.1991 for running the said book stall on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.4,500/-towards advance. Thereafter, another lease deed was executed on 05.06.1994 with a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/-. The respondent committed willful default in payment of rent from June 1994. The petitioner issued a notice on 26.12.1994 demanding payment of arrears of rent and delivery of possession. The respondent paid Rs.10,800/-being the rental arrears for six months through Banker's cheque along with a reply notice dated 02.01.1995. On 06.01.1995, further sum of Rs.1,800/-was paid through banker's cheque. Thus, the respondent paid the rental arrears from June 1994 to December 1994, which was received by the petitioner without prejudice to his right to file eviction petition. The petitioner filed H.R.C.O.P. No.25/1995, seeking for eviction of the respondent on the ground of willful default. He also filed H.R.C.O.P. Nos.19/1995 and 20/1995 on the ground of sub-lease and personal occupation respectively. All the three petitions were allowed on 14.11.1997 and the appeals preferred against the same by the tenant were dismissed on 25.01.1999. However, in C.R.P.Nos.952 to 954 of 1999, this Court by order dated 24.10.2002 allowed the civil revision petitions and set aside the order of eviction. Thereafter, the respondent had willfully defaulted to pay the monthly rent from February 2003 to July 2003 to the tune of Rs.10,800/-. After adjusting the excessive rental advance of Rs.4,200/-, the respondent was still in arrears to the tune of Rs.6,600/- upto the month of July 2003. Hence, the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of willful default.

3. The case of the respondent/tenant is as follows:

She denied the allegation of willful default in payment of monthly rent from February 2003 to July 2003. The tenant's husband suffered serious illness and thus, he had to take treatment for a long time. Therefore, she was forced to be away from Pondicherry very often to accompany her husband for taking treatment in Homeopathy and Siddha system. Consequently, they were prevented from attending to their business for a long time and paying the rents until August 2003. Thus, the delay caused was beyond their control. The tenant met the landlord in the middle of August 2003 and explained the reason for the delay. However, she had paid the rents before the first hearing of the H.R.C.O.P. Therefore, the default is not willful and consequently, the eviction proceedings initiated against her on that ground is not maintainable.

4. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 27.10.2006 allowed the eviction petition by observing that the tenant had committed willful default as she failed to pay the rent without any just and reasonable cause. The tenant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.5 of 2007. By judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the eviction petition on the reasons that no pre-suit notice was given by the landlord and that even before the first appearance in the R.C.O.P., the tenant has paid the entire arrears of rent. Aggrieved against the said order of the Appellate Authority, the present civil revision petition is filed by the landlord.

5. Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/landlord submitted as follows:

The tenant had admitted the arrears and ho