M.S. RAMESH, J.

1. The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is the tenant, who had suffered an eviction order before the appellate authority. The original eviction petition on the ground of willful default in R.C.O.P. No. 1374 of 2008 came to be dismissed on the ground that the landlord had failed to prove that the petitioner had wilfully defaulted in paying rents for the period between January 2007 till June 2008. On appeal, the learned Rent Controller had allowed the eviction petition by observing that the petitioner herein had failed to deposit the rents in the Court at the earliest point of time and as such, failure to deposit the rent would amount to willful default. As against the same, the present revision has been filed.

2. Heard Mr. K.V. Sundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.V. Sanjeevkumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the default period is admitted, the same would not amount to ''willful default'' in view of the conduct of the petitioners herein. According to him, when the respondent herein had intimated the death of his father and had requested that rents be paid to him through a legal notice dated 06.02.2007, they had immediately sent Ex.P2, letter dated 22.02.2007, seeking for the death certificate and legal heirship certificate, followed by several other letters seeking for these documents. In the meantime, the petitioners were also keeping the rent in a separate account and they were awaiting for the legal heirship certificate and death certificate. When the respondent herein had filed the R.C.O.P. they had immediately deposited the entire rental arrears of Rs. 50,000/- in the Court. In view of such conduct, the default cannot be termed as “willful default.”

4. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had not considered any of the evidence before arriving at such a conclusion. By relying upon two decisions of this Court reported in Abdul Hameed vs. M. Sultan Abdul Kader, 1996 (2) MLJ 579 and M. Kothandapani vs. Dhanammal and Another, 2004 (2) MLJ 145 the learned counsel submitted that failure to pay the rent for the period between January 2006 till June 2007 will not amount to willful default.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that, the respondent herein had been repeatedly demanding the rents and that he had also furnished the death certificate and the legal heirship certificate to the concerned Manager of the respondent corporation. It is his further submission that in view of the Section 9 (iii) of the Rent Control Act, there is a duty cast on the respondent to deposit the rents before the learned Rent Controller, when there was a bona-fide doubt with regard to the status of the landlord. Having failed to deposit rents in the time, the petitioner herein cannot take a plea that the default was not willful. With these submissions, the learned counsel sought for rejection of the Civil Revision Petition.

6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

7. From the grounds raised by the petitioner and countered by the respondents herein, the short question that arises before this Court for determination is as to whether the default in paying the rents by the tenants between January 2007 till June 2008 is willful or not.

8. The petitioners' herein are Corporations under the Government of India, who had become tenants of the demised premises with the respondent's father. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the respondent's father had expired, a legal notice dated 06.02.2007 was received by them, intimating the death of the respondent's father to which they had replied on 22.02.2007, seeking for the death certificate and the legal heirship certificate. Since the petitioners herein were tenants under the respondent's father and being a Government Undertaking, t