IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant's conduct in paying rent, the obligation to provide evidence of rent payment, and the duty to deposit rent as required by law are crucial factors in determining wilful default in eviction cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act No.18 of 1960 and Act, No.23 of 1973 and Act No.1 of 1980, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 15.11.2019 passed in R.C.A.No.4 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority), Vaniyambadi, confirming the fair and decretal order of eviction dated 16.02.2017 passed in RCOP.No.1 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif (Rent Controller) Vaniyambadi by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenant, challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

2. The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation. The Rent Controller ordered eviction only on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the same was also dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. According to the respondent landlord, the petition mentioned property, a non residential building was let out to the petitioner in the year 1994 for monthly rent of Rs.450/-. Later on, as per the new rental agreement dated 02.09.2002, the rent was enhanced to Rs.700/- per month. Subsequently, on 01.01.2005 another new rental agreement was entered between the parties and the monthly rent was enhanced Rs.1,000/-. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner committed default from 01.01.2005 onwards. Hence, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.05.2005 informing him that the rental arrangement was cancelled due to the non payment of rent and the requirement of the respondent for own occupation. The said notice was returned by the petitioner. Even, thereafter, the petitioner failed to pay the rent and hence the instant application for eviction was filed on 19.11.2007.

4. The petitioner herein filed a counter affidavit admitting the rent was enhanced to Rs.1000/- from January 2005. It was the case of the petitioner that one Moses Anbalagan let out the premises to him and he has been paying rent to said Moses Anbalagan and the same was entered in the note book maintained by him. It was further case of the petitioner that after death of Moses Anbalagan, the power agent of respondent Valdor Dansingh had been receiving rent from the petitioner then and there. It was specifically pleaded by the petitioner that power agent of respondent received the rent of December 2007 on 04.01.2008 and thereafter, he has not received the rent. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that he has been waiting on the belief that power agent of respondent would come and collect the rent as usual and as he failed to collect the rent, he deposited the rent into his own account.

5. Before the Rent Controller, the power agent of the respondent was examined as PW.1 and six documents were marked on behalf of the respondent landlord. The petitioner was examined as RW.1 and marked note book maintained by him on his behalf as only document.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order of eviction passed by the Court below on the ground of wilful default, submitted that the petitioner has been paying rent to the power agent of the respondent and the respondent is not in the habit of issuing receipts for rent paid by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel by taking this Court to Section 8(1) r/w Section 33 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and Rule 9 r/w Rule 27 of Rules framed thereafter submitted that failure to issue receipt is a punishable offence under the Act and hence, the respondent landlord who failed to issue receipt after having received the rent and thereby violated provisions of law is not entitled to seek eviction.

7. The learned counsel further submitted that even a