ORDER :

Challenging the concurrent finding of eviction recorded by the Rent Controller, Chennai, and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai, the tenant has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition before this Court.

2. The civil revision petitioner is the tenant, and the respondent is the landlord.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to according to their jural relationship, viz., the revision petitioner company as the tenant and the respondent as the landlord.

4. The landlord filed an original petition in R.C.O.P. No.864 of 2000 on the file of the learned rent controller (XV Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai, under Section 10 (2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act"), seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. It was specifically alleged that the tenant had committed wilful default in paying rent for the period from August 1998 to May 2000, and that a sum of Rs.6,05,710/- was due towards arrears of rent.

5. The landlord-The Madras Pinjarapole averred in the original petition that they are the owner of the premises bearing Door No. 374, Konnur High Road, Chennai – 600012. They pleaded that the revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of the said premises under the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 28,095/-, excluding electricity charges and other statutory dues. The tenant had agreed to pay the monthly rent on or before the 10th day of every succeeding month. However, the tenant failed to pay the rent from August 1998 (in part) to May 2000, despite repeated demands made by the landlord. On this basis, the landlord contended that the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

6.1 The tenant-M/s. Kilburn Electricals Limited filed a counter statement denying the allegation of wilful default in the payment of rent. It was contended, inter alia, that thy were not in arrears of rent and, on the contrary, had made substantial on-account payments from time to time in advance, to meet the urgent financial requirements of the landlord, as communicated by the latter. According to the tenant, these payments cumulatively exceeded the actual rent payable and, therefore, were liable to be adjusted against future rent liabilities.

6.2 The tenant contended that they have been in possession of the demised premises as a tenant under the landlord for over 50 years, having been inducted in or around 1956, in respect of vacant land belonging to the landlord. It was further stated that the tenant had, over the course of time, constructed several buildings on the said leasehold land. The lease was periodically renewed, with mutually agreed revisions in the rent. Until recently, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 6,500/-.

6.3 Taking into account that the landlord is a philanthropic institution engaged in animal welfare activities, the tenant voluntarily offered to enhance the rent substantially from Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 28,095/- per month with effect from 01.10.1996, pursuant to the finalisation of a long-term lease agreement between the parties, which was intended to be registered. The tenant asserted that the registration of the lease deed was essential for improving the usage of the land, including carrying out additional constructions, which would require significant financial investment. However, the registration of the lease agreement remained pending.

6.4 In the meantime, at the request of the landlord, the tenant made several on-account payments from time to time to meet the urgent financial needs of the landlord. Although the tenant had initially stated that further payments would be contingent upon the completion of the lease registration, they did not adhere strictly to that positi