1. The minimum facts that are necessary for the disposal of this revision may be stated as follows:

(i) The petitioner is a landlady of a certain non-residential building, which she has leased out to the respondent herein sometime in February, 1992. The tenant has left a Security Deposit of Rs. 40,000/- with the revision petitioner which is refundable on the termination of lease. But after the commencement of tenancy, the tenant almost immediately started adjusting the rent for next 39 months and accordingly deducted it from the Security Deposit. The relationship has not been comfortable between the landlord and tenant, and the tenant had moved the Rent Controller in RCOP No. 2732 of 1992 for fixation of fair rent, which the Rent Controller has determined at Rs. 1,052/- per month, and this order was later confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well.

(ii) There were also subsequent default in payment of rent and consequent to which, the petitioner had moved the Rent Controller in RCOP No. 986 of 1993 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default. This was dismissed by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes Vide order dated 31.07.1997 on the ground that the retention of substantial sum as advance by the petitioner would enure to the credit of the respondent.

(iii) Even thereafter, the situation does not improve vastly and the tenant pursued a pattern of paying monthly rents as lumpsum amount cumulatively for 3-4 months. However, from 01.10.2002 he has been continuously in default.

(iv) The revision petitioner thereafter filed RCOP No. 1048 of 2003 before the XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai for eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default. This was resisted by the respondent primarily on the ground that even prior to his first appearance before the Court, the tenant has issued a cheque by Registered Post with acknowledgement due for a sum of Rs. 9,312/- and this amount was received by the petitioner on 04.7.2003 without demur, and hence it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the respondent has committed wilful default in the matter of payment of rent. The rent is being paid upto date and there is not even any default subsequently.

(v) The learned Rent Controller in his order dated 16.06.2004 has recorded this fact and has held that in cases where notice demanding arrears of rent was not issued, it will be for the landlady to make out a case for wilful default by the tenant, failing which, the Rent Controller may exercise his discretion under the proviso to Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. The learned Rent Controller has relied on the authority reported in (2003) 10 SCC 610 and thereupon has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not proved her case with substantial evidence. This order was challenged by the revision petitioner/landlady in R.C.A. No. 921 of 2004 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority Vide its order dated 10.02.2010 confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller in RCOP No. 1048/2003. This order of the Appellate Authority is now in challenge in this revision.

2. Mr. S. Sadasivan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that while the respondent/tenant does not deny that he had committed default, yet in order to establish that he had not committed wilful default, he has issued a cheque dated 04.07.2003 along with a covering letter in Ext.R-2, but safely he has not produced the acknowledgement card sent by the revision petitioner in order to establish as to when exactly the said mail was dispatched to the revision petitioner. This, in other words would mean, that the said amount might not have been dispatched on the day the respondent claims. The learned counsel also submitted that the conduct of the tenant right from the comencement of tenancy is such that he frequently violated the obligation to pay rent promptly before the 5th day of every suceeding month. He suo moto created his own pa