ORDER

The civil revision petition is directed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 06.03.2017 passed in RCA.No.556 of 2015 thereby reversed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.679 of 2014 dated 14.08.2015.

2. The petitioners are the landlords. The respondent is the tenant. The petitioners filed petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The respondent is the tenant in respect of shop portion on the ground floor of the petition premises at New No.24, Old No.48, Station Road, Villivakkam, Chennai. The monthly rent is fixed at Rs.4,000/- payable by the respondent herein. The landlords executed power of attorney in favour of one D.Rajapa on 24.04.2009 vide document No.1188 of 2009 to collect rent and also to maintain the petition premises. The landlords authorised the power of attorney to collect the rent and also authorised to collect additional rental advance, to evict the tenants, to fix fair rent and for maintenance of the petition premises. The respondent regularly paid rent till 2011 and all of sudden, they stopped payment of monthly rent. Therefore, the petitioner namely power of attorney caused legal notice on 05.08.2013 thereby call upon the respondent to pay arrears of rent. After receipt of the same, the respondent did not reply for the notice caused by the petitioner. The respondent has committed willful default in payment of monthly rent for the period from 01.01.2011 to 2013. Whereas the respondent filed counter and stated that the land in question belong to temple authorities. They filed suit as against the landlord for permanent injunction restraining them from alienation and subletting the petition premises property. The respondent already filed RCOP.No.2509 of 2009 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai to deposit the rent for the reason that the landlord refused to receive the rent for the petition premises. Therefore, the intention of the petitioner landlord is only to evict the respondent forcibly. Therefore, the respondent never committed any default in payment of rents. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered for eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred appeal and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two grounds.

(i) The power of attorney appointed by the landlord is an agent and clearly authorised him to collect rents. Under Section 2 (6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act defines that landlord "includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a tenant. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to collect rent on behalf of the landlords. (ii) The respondent refused to pay the rent to the power of attorney and as such he filed petition to deposit the rent in RCOP.No.2509 of 2009. It was dismissed since the respondent did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 8 of the said Act permitting him to deposit rent in the court. Therefore, he committed wilful default and liable to be evicted.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the tenant filed RCOP in the year 2009 itself, seeking permission to deposit rent for the petition premises. He further submitted that the respondent never committed any default since he followed all the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the said Act and aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, he also filed appeal and it is pending in RCA.No.21 of 2017. In fact, the respondent is permitted to deposit rent in the account of RCA.No.21 of 2017 and he is regularly depositing