Willful default in rent payment requires consistent non-payment and indifference, as established by tenant's irregular payment behavior.

ORDER :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

Challenging the Order of the appellate authority reversing the finding of the rent controller Ordering eviction under section 10 [2] [i] [a] of the Tamilnadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, the present revision has been filed.

2. The landlord has filed rent controller proceedings under section 10[2] [i] [a] of the Tamilnadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act for eviction on the ground of willful default. It is the case of the landlord that the respondent was originally inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- and the same has been periodically increased and the present rent payable is Rs.8000/- per month excluding electricity. The respondent is not prompt in paying monthly rents and failed to pay monthly rent for the months of January 2017 and February 2017 and there is arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.16000/- . Therefore, a petition has been filed for eviction on the ground of willful default. The tenant took a stand that the monthly rent payable is not Rs.8000/- and it is only Rs.6000/-. According to him, he has not committed willful default and the rents have been tendered continuously. When he tendered rent for 2015, the same has not been received by the landlord. Therefore, he sent the rent through money order, which is also returned. Hence, the respondent sent a legal notice to the petitioner calling for the petitioner to specify the bank details, which was returned as no such address. Therefore, according to him, he has not committed default. The rent controller considering the evidence found that the monthly rent was Rs.6000/- and not Rs.8000/- and held that as the respondent has not paid rent for two months, Ordered eviction. The appellate authority has reversed the finding on the ground that the rents have been paid regularly and there is no willful default. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that willful default has to be assessed not only from the date of default but in the context of subsequent conduct of the tenant. The tenant having taken a plea that he has tendered rent, but the same has not been received by the landlord, he has not deposited the rent every month. Whereas, he had deposited the rents at his whims and fancies and that itself construe that there is willful default. The appellate authority has not taken into consideration all the facts and simply allowed the appeal. Hence, submitted that the respondent has to be evicted.

4. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the rents have been deposited during the pendency of the proceedings in lumpsum for several months and the same has been received by the landlord. When the landlord was hostile in receiving rents in lumpsum, it cannot be said that there is willful default. In this regard he has relied upon the judgment in S.P.Deshmukh Vs. Shah Nihal Chand Waghajibai reported in [1977] 3 Supreme Court Cases 515 and submitted that if the rent tendered by the tenant is accepted by the landlord, it cannot be held that there is willful default. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this revision.

5. Heard both sides and perused entire materials available on record.

6. It is relevant to note that as the tenant committed default in paying rents, rent control proceedings has been initiated by the landlord as early in the year 2017 on the ground of willful default. The rent controller holding that the monthly rent payable was Rs.6000/-, ordered eviction. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the tenant is not prompt in paying rent and the conduct adopted by the tenant is nothing but willful default.

7. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the tenant that as the landlord refused to receive the rent, he has sent the rent through money Order and the same has not been received by the landlord and therefore, he sought bank details,