1. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the Courts below in dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner against the landlord under section 8 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the present revision has been filed.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision is as follows :

The revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-. As the respondents have cut the amenities, the revision petitioner has filed a petition to restore the amenities in H.R.C.O.P.No.63 of 1995 and the above application has been allowed. Aggrieved over the same, the respondents started to evade receiving rent in order to create a ground for eviction. Thereafter, the petitioner sent rent by Demand Drafts drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank on 06.10.1987, 06.11.1987, 05.12.1987 and 06.01.1988 and the respondent received the demand drafts. However, for the month of January, 1988, he refused to receive the demand draft. Hence, the petitioner sought permission of the Court to deposit rent in the Court.

3. The respondents disputing the allegation that he had received the rent by way of Demand Drafts, it is his contention that he never received any such demand draft and submitted that the petitioner is a willful defaulter and prayed for dismissal of the application. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the requirement contemplated under Section 8 of Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act has not been followed for depositing the rent and dismissed the application. As against which, an appeal has been preferred before the Rent Control Appellate authority and the appellate authority also confirmed the finding of the trial Court. As against which, the present revision has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that Section 8 of Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act is only an enabling provision and is not a mandatory provision. Merely because notice requesting the landlord to name the bank is not sent, that cannot be a ground to dismiss the application. Since Section 8 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act is only an enabling provision. Further, it is his contention that he has been depositing the rents regularly and he cannot be termed as a willful defaulter. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgment in R.Srinivasan Vs. V.Thangaraju and Others reported in 1999 (2) MLJ 337.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the entire materials available on record. There is no representation for the respondent.

6. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that he had sent rent through demand drafts up to December 1988 and the same has been received by the landlord. Thereafter, the landlord refused to receive the rent. To substantiate the above contention, absolutely there is no materials placed before this Court. Whereas, the landlord has denied the receipt of such demand draft.

7. It is curious to note that to invoke Section 8(5) of Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act to deposit the rent, it is obligatory on the part of the tenant to comply preliminary mandatory requirements contemplated under section 8(5) Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, any obligation on the tenant to pay the rent regularly, if the landlord is found evading to receive the rent. The procedure contemplated under section 8 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act is notice required to be issued to the landlord to name the bank, in my view is mandatory. For the section starts with the word 'may', the word 'may' shall be construed as 'shall' as far as complying the conditions. Only if the procedure contemplated under section is properly complied, that will enable the Court to find out whether non payment of rent is deliberate and willful default or not. Only to assess the above fact, procedure has been contemplated under section 8 of Tamilnadu B