ORDER :

(Heard through video conferencing)

This Civil Revision Petition has arisen out of the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed in RCA.No.135 of 2016, dated 05.01.2017, wherein the Eviction Order passed by the Rent Controller/the XV Small Causes Court at Chennai in R.C.O.P. No.2354 of 2012, dated 29.01.2016 was reversed.

2. The petitioner is the Landlord and the respondent is the tenant.

3. The landlord has filed a petition for eviction against the respondent on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. The contention of the respondent/tenant is that he has been paying the rent promptly by depositing it in the Court without any default by filing a petition in RCOP.NO.2045 of 2009 and hence the ground of willful default can not be made applicable against him. The Rent Controller has appreciated the facts and evidence and arrived at a finding that the conduct of the respondent/tenant in paying the rent by way of deposit in the court in the name of the earlier owner of the premises itself would show his evasive attitude and because of that the land lord was deprived to take the rent deposited in the Court.

4. While the respondent claimed that the rent for the premises is at Rs.800/- per month, the petitioner claimed that the rent is at Rs.1500/-. The petitioner has further submitted that the respondent was making a false claim about the quantum of the rent by knowing pretty well that the revised rent after the purchase of the property by the petitioner is at 1,500/- per month. But the learned First Appellate Authority has chosen to reverse the order of eviction on the ground that the revision of rent at Rs.1500/- was not intimated to the respondent/tenant and hence he cannot be found fault for paying the rent at Rs.850/- p.m.

5. In the order of the rent controller a portion of the evidence of RW1 (respondent) has been extracted in order to show that the respondent had admitted that he had knowledge about the purchase of the property by the petitioner on 13.07.2009 and the said fact was intimated to by issuing a notice. So the respondent was aware of the change of ownership of the demised premises immediately after the sale and he continued to be the tenant under the new owner also.

6. At the completion of the conferment of title in favour of the petitioner, attornment of tenenacy becomes automatic. Having known well about the transfer of ownership, the respondent had chosen to file a petition to deposit the rent in Court by filing a petition to deposit the rent. In the said petition he has strangely impleaded the earlier owner and not the petitioner. On coming to know about the deposit petition through the previous owner, the petitioner filed a petition and get himself impleaded as a party and claimed that the rent could be paid to him directly. Despite that, the respondent has chosen the short-circuit way of depositing the rent in court, just in order to evade from paying the revised rent.

7. Before filing a petition to deposit the rent, the tenant ought to have issued a notice to the landlord by tendering the rent to him directly. Only if the landlord refuses to receive the same, he could opt to deposit the same by way of filing a petition in the Rent Control Court. But the respondent did not offer the rent to the petitioner by sending him a notice. In fact, he had sent the mandatory pre litigation notice to the previous owner and on her refusal, he started to deposit the rent in the court. By keeping the petitioner under dark, he had chosen to deposit the rent in court. At least, after the petitioner got himself impleaded as a party to the deposit application, the respondent should have paid the rent directly to him. Making the landlord to loiter here and there to collect rent itself, should also be construed as nothing but supine indifference on the part of the respondent in paying the rent. And that is sufficient to attract the ground of willful default.

8. Further, the petitioner has also initiated a proce