The main legal point established in the judgment is that wilful default in payment of rent requires intentional, deliberate, and conscious non-payment by the tenant. The continuous payment of rent during litigation absolves the tenant of wilful default.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree in RCA.No. 92 of 2015 on the file of IX Judge Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 09.12.2016 reversing the judgment and decree in RCOP.No.1884 of 2012 on the file of X Judge Small Casues Court, Chennai, dated 06.01.2015.)

1. The landlords have come up with this Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.12.2016 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, allowing the Rent Control Appeal No.92 of 2015 filed by the tenant/respondent and reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2015 passed in RCOP.No.1884 of 2012.

2. The facts that has given rise to the filing of the revision is stated as follows.

3. The revision petitioners/landlords have filed RCOP.No.1884 of 2012 under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (in short, the Act) for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. According to the petitioners, the respondent was inducted as a tenant in a land measuring an extent of 1200 sq ft., consisting of Shed with cement sheeted roof, for carrying non-residential business of selling fire wood. Initially, the respondent paid Rs.400/- as rent in the year 2002 and subsequently it was revised to Rs.500/- until the year 2007. From July 2007, the respondent has been paying Rs.1,000/- as rent. However, the respondent has paid rent lastly on 10.04.2011 and thereafter, he committed default in payment of rent from April 2011 to July 2012 for a period of 16 months. Therefore, for the default in payment of rent, the original petition was filed by the landlords for eviction.

4. On notice, the respondent/tenant has filed a counter affidavit stating that non payment of rent is neither willful nor wanton. In fact, on receipt of notice in RCOP.No.1884 of 2012 he has immediately contacted his counsel and paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- towards arrears of rent on 17.10.2012 representing rent from April 2011 to September 2012. The sum of Rs.18,000/- was also received by the landlords under protest. In the counter affidavit, the tenant has strongly denied the title of the landlords by saying that he was originally inducted as a tenant in the year 1953 under one M.A.Mohamed Burhanudeen for running a fire wood depot and obtained a licence from the Corporation of Madras on 11.05.1953 for carrying on such business. At that time, he was only offered the vacant land for running the business and thereafter, the respondent put up Tin Sheets and AC sheets, besides constructing a compound wall at his own cost. In the year 1953, the rent was Rs.17/- and Rs.500/- was paid as rental advance. After the death of M.A.Mohamed Burhanudeen, his son Sulthan Sahib was collecting the rent from him. It is also stated that the respondent is an illiterate and taking advantage of the same, by citing the alleged non payment of rent, the original petition was filed for eviction. It is stated that the question of wilful default in payment of rent will not arise in this case and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition.

5. A reply was filed to the counter of the tenant. In the reply it was stated that after the death of M.A.Mohamed Burhanudeen, his son Sulthan Sahib was collecting the rent from the respondent. Subsequently, from the year 2002, the respondent/tenant has been paying the rent to the revision petitioners herein. While so, it is futile to contend that the revision petitioners have no title to the land. It was also specifically denied that the respondent did not put up the construction on his own and it is a blatant lie.

6. On the above pleadings, the parties went for trial. During trial, the second petitioner examined herself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. The respondent/tenant examined himself as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R14 were marked.

7. The learned Rent Controller upon considering the oral and documentary evide