Ravi Raja Gopal vs G. Anantharaman

S. Manikumar, J.—Tenant is the Revision Petitioner in the Revision Petitions. The Landlord has filed RCOP No 1781 of 2009, on the file of the learned 13th Small Causes Judge, Chennai, for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(iii)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for wilful default and for acts of waste and nuisance.

Material on record discloses that the Respondent-Landlord is the owner of the Petition property at Door No Y-164, 1st Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40. A Lease Agreement, dated 1.6.2000, has been entered with the Revision Petitioner, who is running a proprietary concern, under the name and style of M/s Tentacles Secure Squads. Initially, Rent was fixed at Rs. 3,000/-, including Rs. 1,500/- as Amenity Charges and an Advance amount of Rs. 30.000/- has been received. The Lease Agreement was for a period of 11 months. As per the averments made in RCOP No.1781 of 2009, filed by the Landlord, the lease was extended, but no fresh Agreement has been entered into between the parties. As per the Landlord, the rent was subsequently increased to Rs. 5,500/- and Amenity Charges was fixed at Rs. 2,000/-. Therefore, the total Rent to be paid was Rs. 7,500/- per month.

According to the Respondent/Landlord, the Tenant has committed wilful default and also acts of waste and nuisance and therefore, he called upon the Revision Petitioner Tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession. He has also submitted that the Tenant, by leaving the food waste and rubbish on the way to the first floor, has also caused nuisance. Therefore, the Landlord has sent a Notice, dated 7.3.2009, requesting the Tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession.

Alleging that the Landlord had engaged in unlawful activities and thus, attempted to evict him from the Petition premises, the Tenant has filed a Suit in O.S. No. 1729 of 2009, for a permanent injunction, against the Respondent. Subsequently, the Tenant has also sent a Notice, dated 6.5.2008, containing allegations that the Landlord has engaged in unlawful activities and threatened him to vacate from the Petition premises. Again, the Tenant has sent another Notice, dated 7.7.2009, alleging that the 2nd Respondent has forcibly entered into the Petition premises, with hooligans and politicians and threatened him to vacate the premises.

The Respondent/Landlord has submitted that the Tenant has failed to pay the rent from January 2009 and hence, a Notice, dated 1.4.2009 was sent But by mistake, the period of default was wrongly mentioned from 1.3.2009. Taking advantage of the error in the Notice, as to the date of wilful default, the Tenant has paid only Rs. 10,500/-. It is the further contention of the Respondent Landlord that as per the calculation, the Tenant was due and payable, a sum of Rs. 37,500/- towards Rent, Electricity Charges of Rs. 822 - and Toilet Cleaning Charges of Rs. 822/- respectively.

According to the Landlord, on 17.7.2009. the Tenant has sent a sum of Rs. 5240/- only, without specifying the heads of payment. The Rent has been subsequently revised at Rs. 7,500/- per month and that a sum of Rs. 2,000 - has already been fixed towards Amenities Charges. According to the Landlord, as on the date of presentation of the Petition, the Tenant was in arrears of Rs. 38.340/-, after adjusting the amounts paid by him. After issuance of Notices, dated 15.4.2009 and 17.7.2009, returned as refused, the Landlords have filed RCOP No 1781 of 2009, on the file of the learned 13th Small Causes Judge, Chennai, for eviction, on the ground of wilful default and for acts of waste and nuisance.

Objecting to the prayer sought for in the Rent Control proceedings, the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has submitted that though rents were paid periodically, the Landlords were not in the habit of issuing receipts. The allegation as regards act of nuisance has been denied. According to the Tenant, the Landlords, in Order to forcibly evict the Tenant from the Petition premises have disturbed his possession with help of hooligans, during the last week of February 2009 and therefore, the Tenant was constrained to tile a Suit in O.S No.1721 of 2009, on the file of the learned XIV Assistant City Civil Court Chennai, for permanent injunction.

The Revision Petitioner/Tenant has denied the allegation of default of payment of Rent from January 2009. According to him, when he tendered rent for the months of January 2009 in February, Rent for February 2009 in March and Rent for March 2009 in April, the Landlords have received the same, but not given any receipts. Thus, the Tenant has denied the allegation of wilful default. According to the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, from April 2009 till the date of filing of the Counter Affidavit. Rent has been paid periodically, by way of Money Order to the Landlord and that there was no default. The Tenant has also submitted that there was some dispute in February 2009, regarding enhancement of Rent, the Landlords have stopped all the amenities, but he continued to pay the Rent at Rs. 5,500/- and therefore, he has not committed any wilful default, nor acts of waste and nuisance. For the above said reasons, he has prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition.

On the above pleadings, the learned Rent Controller has framed the following points for consideration:

(1) Whether the Petitioners (Landlords) are entitled for eviction on the ground of wilful default ?

(2) Whether the Petitioners (Landlords) are entitled for eviction on the ground of act of waste ?

(3)Whether the Petitioners (Landlords) are entitled for eviction on the ground of nuisance ?"

Before the Rent Controller, the 1st Respondent has examined himself as PW1 and one Smt Karuna Bai has been examined as PW2 Ex.P1-Legal Notice, dated 7.3.2009, sent to the Tenant, Ex.P2-Plaint in O.S No.1721 of 2009, Exs P3 and P4-Legal Notices, dated 6.5.2008 and 7.7.2009 sent by the Tenant''s lawyer to the Landlords, Ex P5-Reply notice, dated 9.7.2009. sent by the Tenant''s lawyer, Exs.P6 and P7-Legal Notices, dated 17.7.2009 and 1.3.2009, sent to the Tenant, Ex P8-Reply Notice, dated 8.4.2009, sent to the Respondent''s lawyer, Ex.P9-Rejoinder Notice, dated 11.4.2009, sent to the Tenant''s lawyer, Ex P10-Notice, dated 21.5.2009, sent by the Tenant''s lawyer to the 2nd Respondent Landlord, Ex P11 -Notice, dated 3.6.2009, sent to the Tenant by the Landland''s lawyer, Ex.P12-Notice, dated 23.6.2009, sent to the Tenant by the Landlord''s lawyer, Ex P13-Notice, dated 30.6.2009, sent by the Tenant to the Landlord''s lawyer, Ex P14-Letter, dated 19.8.2009, issued by the 2nd Respondent to the Revision Petitioner Tenant, Ex P15-Reply notice, dated 22.8.2009, sent by the Tenant''s lawyer to the 2nd Respondent Landlord, Ex P16-Letter, dated 6.10.2009, sent by the Landlords to the Tenant. Ex.P17-Legal Notice, dated 11.11.2009, to the Tenant and Ex.P18-Judgement and Decree in O.S. No 1721 of 2009, dated 26.11.2009 have been marked on the side of the Respondents/Landlords On the side of the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, one Mr. Magesh has been examined as RW1 and three documents, viz., Ex B1 - Authorisation Letter, Ex B2-Legal Notice, dated 21.5.2009 and Ex B3-Money Order Receipts have been marked.

Upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller, 13th Small Causes Judge, Chennai, held that the Landlords have not proved the case of wilful default. At Paragraph 12, the learned Rent Controller has held as follows:

"But in the present case, it is pertinent to note that the arrears of Rent as on the date of filing the Petition has been paid by the Respondent in exclusion of Amenities Charges PW1, has admitted the payment of Rent till March 2009 and the receipt of Money Orders subsequently. Hence, it is clear that there is no default in monthly Rent and further, as discussed above the Petitioners have not properly given credit to the amounts paid by the Respondent and further has demanded additional charges other than the Amenities Charges stated in the Petition Further admittedly the Petitioners have an advance of Rs. 30,000/- which is higher than the Rent for one month, even though the Petitioners are entitled to retain only one month Rent therefore, the arrears if any could have been adjusted in the excess advance. Therefore, in view of the above facts and findings, it is clear that the Respondent has not committed any default in payment of Rents and hence, the question of invoking Section 8(5) does not arise so the above citations cannot be taken to substantiate the Petitioners'' case in the circumstances of the present case. Hence, point No 1 is answered in negative against the Petitioners."

The learned Rent Controller further held that the Landlords have not substantiated the case of act of waste and hence, answered the point against them. Insofar as the ground, relating to nuisance, upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and also placing reliance on the decisions in Janakiram v. Nagammal, 1958 (1) MLJ (SN) 5; and Davey and Sons v. Liberty Dry Cleaners, 1980 TNLJ 15, the learned Rent Controller has held that the Tenant has caused nuisance. Thus, while answering the grounds of wilful default and act of waste, in favour of the Tenant/Revision Petitioner, the learned Rent Controller has allowed the RCOP No. 1781 of 2009, on the ground of nuisance and accordingly, vide Judgment and decree, dated 23.7.2010, ordered eviction, by granting two months time.

Being aggrieved by the adverse findings, on the grounds wilful default and act of waste, the Landlords have preferred RCA No 542 of 2010, contending inter aha that the learned Rent Controller has committed an error in recording a finding regarding wilful default. In the above said Appeal, it was also the contention of the Landlords that the learned Rent Controller has failed to assess the evidence, adduced by the Landlords, in proper perspective and in particular to Exs. P6, P9, P11, P12, P14, P16 and P17. The Landlords have also raised other grounds, in the Memorandum of Appeal.

Pending disposal of the Appeal in RCA No 542 of 2010, the Landlords have filed M.P. No.375 of 2011, under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, contending inter alia that the Tenant has committed wilful default in payment of Rent of Rs. 5,500/- along with Rs. 2.000/- towards Amenity Charges, totally a sum of Rs. 7,500/-, from January'' 2009 till January 2011. The Landlords have prayed for a direction, directing the Revision Petitioner/Tenant to pay an arrears of monthly Rent of Rs. 57,843/-, from January 2009 to February 2011 and continue to pay the monthly Rents, regularly, till the disposal of the Rent Control Appeal. The details of arrears of Rent from January 2009, along with electricity charges, due and payable by the tenant and the Rents received by the Respondents/Landlords, furnished in M R No.375 of 2011, are reproduced hereunder:

Rents due for the mouths

Amount

January 2009 payable in February 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

February 2009 payable in March 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

March 2009 payable in April 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

April 2009 payable in May 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

May 2009 payable in June 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

June 2009 payable in July 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

July 2009 payable in August 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

August 2009 payable in September 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

September 2009 payable in October 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

October 2009 payable in November 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

November 2009 payable in December 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

December 2009 payable in January 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

January 2010 payable in February 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

February 2010 payable in March 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

March 2010 payable in April 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

April 2010 payable in May 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

May 2010 payable in June 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

June 2010 payable in July 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

July 2010 payable in August 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

August 2010 payable in September 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

September 2010 payable in October 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

October 2010 payable in November 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

November 2010 payable in December 2010

Rs. 7,500/-

December 2010 payable in January 2011

Rs. 7,500/-

January 2011 payable in February 2011

Rs. 7,500/-

February 2011 payable in January 2011

Rs. 7,500/-

Total

Rs. 1,95,000/-

Electrical Energy Charges due for the Months

Amount

January 2009 to February 2009

Rs. 462/-

March 2009 to April 2009

Rs. 360/-

May 2009 to June 2009

Rs. 558/-

July 2009 to August 2009

Rs. 516/-

September 2009 to October 2009

Rs. 534/-

November 2009 to December 2009

Rs. 456/-

January 2010 to February 2010

Rs. 654/-

March 2010 to April 2010

Rs. 336/-

May 2010 to June 2010

Rs. 552/-

July 2010 to August 2010

Rs. 648/-

September 2010 to October 2010

Rs. 636/-

November 2010 to December 2010

Rs. 672/-

January 2010 to February 2011

Rs. 624/-

Total

Rs. 1,95,000/-

Rents received from the Tenant

Amount

13.6.2009

Rs. 10,500/-

17.7.2009

Rs. 5,250/-

28.8.2009

Rs. 5,250/-

6.10.2009

Rs. 10,450/-

9.11.2009

Rs. 5,225/-

21.12.2009

Rs. 5,230/-

27.1.2010

Rs. 5,230/-

24.2.2010

Rs. 5,230/-

8.4.2010

Rs. 10,450/-

20.5.2010

Rs. 5,250/-

31.7.2010

Rs. 11,000/-

30.8.2010

Rs. 5.500/-

25.9.2010

Rs. 5,500/-

2.12.2010

Rs. 11,000/-

19.1.2011

Rs. 11,000 -

21.3.2011

Rs. 11.000 -

Total

Rs. 1,23,065/-

In the Counter Affidavit to M.P. No.375 of 2011, the Revision Petitioner Tenant inter alia, has submitted as follows:

The Respondent has humbly submits that this present Application is a Second Application for the same cause of action. It is prayed that the Counter filed in the previous M.P. No 878 of 2010 may be read with part and parcel of this Counter. The Respondent humbly submits that the previous Application in M.P. No.878 of 2010 in the above RCA was already dismissed on 3.3.2011 as such this present Application is not maintainable for the same cause of action."

It is also the further contention of the Revision Petitioner/Tenant that there was no arrears of Rent Upon consideration of pleadings and submissions, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, has framed the following point for consideration,-

"Whether the Petition has to be allowed or not ?

The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, vide Order, dated 31st August 2012, directed the Revision Petitioner Tenant to deposit the rental arrears of Rs. 35,843/-, upto February 2011 and the subsequent rental arrears from March'' 2011 to August 2012 for 18 months at the rate of Rs. 7,500/-, which comes to Rs. 1,35,000/-, totalling Rs. 1,70,843/- to the credit of RCA. No. 542 of 2010, on or before 13.9.2012 and future monthly rent regularly, till the disposal of the Appeal, failing which, all further proceedings would be stopped. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has also directed to post the Appeal RCA No. 542 of 2010, on 14.9.2012.

Inasmuch as the amount, directed to be deposited on or before 1.3.2012, had not been deposited, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai, by its Order, dated 14.9.2012, allowed M.P. No 375 of 2011. Thus, by closing the proceedings in RCA No.542 of 2010, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has directed the Revision Petitioner/Tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession by two months. Being aggrieved by the Orders, dated 31.8.2012, directing payment of the above said sum and the Order, dated 14.9.2012, stopping all further proceedings in RCA, with a direction to quit and deliver possession, by two months, the present Revision Petitions have been filed.

Assailing the correctness of the Orders impugned in this Civil Revision Petitions, Mr. G. Rangan, learned Counsel for the Tenant submitted that on 1.6.2000, the Revision Petitioner Tenant had been inducted into the Petition mentioned premises. According to him, a Lease Agreement, dated 1.6.2000, was entered into between the parties and that the Rent was initially fixed at Rs. 3,000/-, including Rs. 1,500/- as Amenity Charges. He also submitted that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been paid as advance. Though the Rent was periodically increased, the tenant never hesitated to pay the Rent But in the last week of February 2009, the Landlords had not provided any amenity and therefore, the Tenant was constrained not to pay any amount towards amenities. At this juncture, the Landlords, with the help of hooligans, attempted to evict the tenant from the Petition premises Apprehending threat, the tenant approached the Police for protection, but the Police felt that the dispute was of a Civil nature. The Revision Petitioner/Tenant insisted the Landlords to provide amenities, as assured. However, they continued to engage in unlawful activities. Hence, the Revision Petitioner/Tenant was constrained to file a Suit in O.S. No 1729 of 2009, on the file of the learned XIV Asst Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a permanent injunction. After six months from the date of institution of the above Suit, the Respondents/Landlords have filed R.C.O.P. No.1781 of 2009, for eviction, on the grounds of wilful default, act of waste and nuisance.

Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant further submitted that before the learned Rent Controller, the Landlords have miserably failed to prove that they have provided the amenities, as assured. Inviting the attention of this Court to the oral testimony of the 1st Respondent Landlord, he submitted that before the learned Rent Controller, the Landlord himself has admitted that there was no arrears of Rent and taking note of the same, vide Judgment and Decree, dated 23.7.2010, the Rent Control proceedings, alleging wilful default, was dismissed. He further submitted that the allegation of act of waste has also been rejected. However, erroneously placing reliance on the testimony of the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, as regards nuisance, the learned Rent Controller has ordered eviction.

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant that as the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller, regarding nuisance was erroneous, the tenant has preferred an Appeal in RCA No 526 of 2010, in which, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has granted interim stay of eviction. He further submitted that being aggrieved over the finding regarding wilful default and act of waste, the Landlords have preferred RCA No.542 of 2010. He further submitted that when the aspects of wilful default, act of waste and nuisance, are subject matter of adjudication in RCA Nos.542 and 526 of 2010 respectively, the respondents/Landlords have filed M.P. No. 375 of 2011. contending inter alia that the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has to pay an arrears of monthly Rent of Rs. 57.843/- from January 2009 to February, 2011, and continue to pay the monthly Rent regularly.

Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner Tenant submitted that on 24.4.2010, when the witness, examined on behalf of the Landlords, has admitted that there was no arrears of Rent, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the tenant as a wilful defaulter. According to him, the tenant is continuously paying Rent, except the Amenity Charges, since they were not provided from January'' 2009. He further submitted that only few payments have been taken note of by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and that the said authority has failed to consider that payments were made periodically. He also submitted that when the tenant has produced all the material documents, to prove that Rents were paid periodically, except the Amenity Charges, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to have taken note of the same, while arriving at the total amount, allegedly due and payable by the tenant, before stopping the Rent Control proceedings. In the light of the above submissions, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant submitted that the impugned Orders require interference.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

At the outset, from the perusal of the Orders, it was noticed that the Rent for the period between January 2012 to August 2012, has been paid in one lumpsum and therefore, it was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that there was a default in payment of Rent, during the pendency of the Appeal. After an adjournment, the present learned Counsel has come on record. The Rent Control Original Petition has been filed, alleging arrears of Rent for the period from January 2009 to August 2009. Electrical charges and other charges were also stated to be due. The tabular column pertaining to the arrears of Rent and other charges, for the period from January 2009 to August 2009 and the amounts said to have been received by the Landlord, etc., as mentioned in R.C.O.P. No. 1781 of 2009, are furnished hereunder:

Rents due for the month

Amount

January 2009 payable in February 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

February 2009 payable in March 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

March 2009 payable in April 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

April 2009 payable in May 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

May 2009 payable in June 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

June 2009 payable in July 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

July 2009 payable in August 2009

Rs. 7,500/-

Total

Rs. 52,500/-

Electrical Energy Charges due for the Months

Amount

January 2009 to February 2009

Rs. 462/-

March 2009 to April 2009

Rs. 360/-

May 2009 to June 2009

Rs. 558/-

Total

Rs. 1,380/-

Toiler Cleaning Charges due for the Months

Amount

January 2009 to February 2009

Rs. 70 /-

March 2009 to April 2009

Rs. 70 /-

May 2009 to June 2009

Rs. 70/-

Total

Rs. 210/-

Amounts receded from the Respondent

Amount

Money Order on 13.6.2009

Rs. 10,500/-

Money Older on 17.7.2009

Rs. 5,250/-

Total

Rs. 15,750/-

In the Counter Affidavit filed by the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, dated 11.11.2009, jural relationship has been admitted Rent at Rs. 1,500 - and Amenity Charges of Rs. 1,500/- have also been admitted. The Revision Petitioner has also admitted that the Rent and Amenity Charges on the date of filing of Rent Control proceedings was Rs. 5,500/- and Rs. 2,000/- per month, respectively. The Revision Petitioner/Tenant is running a business of security services and in the course of business, security guards are stated to be working under him. The Revision Petitioner/Tenant has stated that in February 2009, amenities have been stopped. In the Counter Affidavit, the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has given the following dates of payment of Rent.

Rent

Date

April and May

12.6.2009

June

16.7.2009

July

27.8.2009

August

5.10.2009

September

5.10.2009

October

7.11.2009

Material on record discloses that eviction has been sought for, on the ground of wilful default, 111 payment of Rent, from January 2009 to August 2009. Upon evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the learned Rent Controller has rejected the said contention, by observing that PW1 has admitted payment of Rent till March 2009 and that therefore, there was no default.

During the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal, the Respondents/Landlords have filed M.P. No 878 of 2010 and that the said Petition has been dismissed earlier, as there was some deficiency in the particulars furnished by the Landlords. However, leave has been granted to file a fresh Petition. Hence, the Respondents/Landlords have filed M.P. No. 375 of 2011, under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Tenant that no Second Application under Section 11(4) of the Act, is maintainable, cannot be accepted. As stated supra, M.P. No. 878 of 2010, has been dismissed only for want of particulars, but with a leave to file fresh Petition.

As per the averments, the Landlords have submitted that a sum of Rs. 1,23,065/- has been received from the Tenant towards Rent for the period between 13.6.2009 and 21.3.2011. Vide Order, dated 31st August, 2012, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has directed the Revision Petitioner/Tenant to deposit the rental arrears of Rs. 35,843/- upto February 2011 and from March 2011 to August 2012 for 18 months (a) Rs. 7,500/-, which comes to Rs. 1,35,000/-, totalling Rs. 1,70,843/-. However, due to non-payment of the above said amount, as ordered as per Section 11(4) of the Act, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has stopped further proceedings in the Appeal.

Extract of the details, stated supra, makes it clear that Rents have been paid on different dates, without adhering to any prescribed time schedule. As per Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the tenant has to pay or tender Rent due to him, in respect of building within 15 days, after the expiry of time, fixed in the Agreement of Tenancy, with his Landlord or in the absence of any such Agreement by the last day of the month, following that, for which, the Rent is payable Further, admittedly, payment of Rs. 5,500/- alone has been made, towards Rental Charges. It is evident from the letter of Tentacle Secure Squads, the Revision Petitioner Tenant, addressed to Mrs. A. Chithra, W/o Mr. G. Anantha Raman, 1st Respondent Landlord that a Demand Draft to the tune of Rs. 43,876/-, bearing No. 828010, dated 6.9.2012, has been enclosed along with the above said Letter, towards the Rent for the premises at Door No 164, Y Block, 1st Street, Anna Nagar. Chennai-40, for the period from 1st January 2012 to 31st August 2012.

It is evident from the above said Demand Draft for Rs. 43,876/-, that even after the institution of the Rent Control proceedings and during the pendency of the Appeal, the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has committed wilful default of payment of Rent for nearly 8 months. As per the original Lease Agreement, between the parties, the Rent as well as the Amenity Charges have to be paid on or before every succeeding English calender month. As stated supra, even in the Counter Affidavit, the Tenant has admitted the monthly Rent of Rs. 5,500/- and the Amenity Charges at Rs. 2,000/- per month. Though no fresh Lease Agreement has been entered into between the parties, the jural relationship continued and that the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, continued to be in possession of the Petition property and running a Security Service Agency.

Though the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner Tenant submitted that the Rent Control Appeal Authority has failed to take into consideration payments made towards Rent, upon perusal of Payment Vouchers, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/has noticed that only three payments made on 9.5.2011, 23.6.2011 and 16.7.2011, have been left out in the calculation given by the Respondents/Landlords. According to the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the left out payment works out to Rs. 22,000/- and that the above said amount has to be deducted from the amount, Rs. 57,843/-, mentioned in RCOP. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, after deducting the above said amount, has directed the Revision Petitioner/Tenant to deposit the Rental Arrears of Rs. 35,843/- upto February 2011 and the subsequent Rental Arrears from March 2011 to August 2011 for 18 months (a) Rs. 7,500/-, which comes to Rs. 1,35,000/-, totalling Rs. 1,70,843/-. The Appellate Authority has also directed the Revision Petitioner/Tenant, to deposit the future monthly Rent regularly.

Since the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has failed to deposit the Rent, within the stipulated time, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has stopped all further proceedings in the Appeal. Though the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has contended that tire Rent is being paid promptly, as per the time schedule mentioned in the Lease Agreement, except the Amenity Charges, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that even as pet the Tabular column furnished in the Counter Affidavit, in some cases, monthly Rents have been clubbed.

Though the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has contended that Rents have been paid promptly, Letter, dated 7.9.2012, is a conclusive proof of default in payment of Rent.

In Nagarathinam Pillai v. Mahadeva Iyer, 1969 (2) MLJ 492, this Court held that where delay occurs with regard to several months, it is difficult to accept the argument that the default is not wilful.

In Venugopal v. Doyal prasad, 1970(1) MLJ 60, this Court held that if any date is fixed, the tenant is bound to pay the Rent within fifteen days thereafter.

In Muthu Bai and others v. Adinarayana Chetty, 1989 (1) MLJ 502. this Court held that the default accompanied by particular state of mind can be inferred from the fact that the Tenant deposits the arrears of Rent after the Petition for eviction was filed. It was also held that it would amount to wilful default.

In K.N. Gunalan v. C. Santhalingam, 1994 (1) MLJ 510, this Court held that irregular payments or lump sum payments would only show that the tenant has committed wilful default.

In Mohamed Rowther v. S.S. Rajalinga Raja and two others, 1994 (2) LW 524, thus Court held that it is well settled law that it is the duty of the tenant to pay the Rent regularly every month as enjoined in the statute without expecting any demand from the Landlord in that regard. In the reported case, the tenant paid only one month Rent and it was found that there was wilful default.

In Subramaniam, S. v. G.R. Palanisamy Gounder, 1995 (1)LW 689, this Court held that payment of Rent in lump sum will not exonerate Tenant from the consequences of wilfulness of the default.

In S. Venkatesulu v. Chandra and two others, 1997 (3) CTC 39, Eviction proceeding was filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of Rent. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court held that it is the dub of the Tenant to pay Rent or deposit Rent with permission of Court winch also will show bona fides. Subsequent conduct in non-payment or non-deposit of Rent will establish wilful default of Rent on part of the Tenant.

In N.S.M. Ahmad Jamalia Beevi v. D.N. Shah, 1997 (2) CTC 412 (SC) : 1998 (1) MLJ 12 (SC) : JT 1997 (7) SC 95, the Apex Court held that it is the bounden duty of the tenant to pay Rent to the Landlord regularly and not to commit any default.

In Anraj Pipada, B. v. V. Umayal, 1998 (2) MLJ 524 : 1998 (3) LW 159, this Court held that when Eviction proceedings were initiated on the ground of wilful default, one would expect the tenant to pay the Rent regularly every month, at least after initiation of proceedings. If the Tenant fails to pay the Rent regularly even during the pendency of the proceedings, then there is no doubt that his conduct in paying Rent as he likes, will amount to wilful default.

In Vasantha Leela v. N. Vadivelu Chettiar, 1998 (3) CTC 467, this Court held that it is the foremost duty of the tenant to pay the Rents in time. Especially when there is litigation between the parties, the tenant ought to be vigilant, and any default in payment of Rent has to be construed as wilful.

In Mettupalayam Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner v. R.M. Shanmugam, 1999 (3) MLJ 691, this Court held that when the Landlord comes to Court after issuing notice calling upon tenant to pay Rents to which notice the tenant neither replies nor makes any payment, but makes payment after institution of the Eviction Petition, that would not absolve Tenant of consequences of wilful default.

The Supreme Court in Chordia Automobiles v. S. Moosa, 2000 (1) CTC 742, held that-

"Act done consciously or deliberately done with open defiance and intent not to pay Rent."

In C. Murugan v. W. Saghadavan, 2000 (2) LW 578, this Court has held as follows:

"When there is no proof regarding payment, the only inference that could be drawn is that the Tenant has put up a false case to escape from the liability of paying Rent. In that event, it has to be presumed that his intention is not to pay Rent and he wanted to escape from the liability on the basis of false evidence. In such cases, he can only be considered as wilful defaulter, liable to be evicted from the building."

This Court in K. Chockalingam v. R.M. Ramasamy, 2000 (2) MLJ 291, held as follows:

"the long period of default expressed the state of mind of the tenant to arrive at a conclusion that it is an intentional violation of clear obligation, which amounts to wilful default."

In Vasuvaithiar, P. v. RM. Rangoo Chettiar, 2000 (2) LW 708, this Court held that Tenant is under a statutory obligation to pay Rent every month according to the agreement. In case the Tenant fails to do so, he is a defaulter. Even if the Rents are paid during the course of proceedings, it cannot absolve him from contending that he is not a wilful defaulter, especially because when litigation is pending, the tenant should have been more careful to discharge his statutory obligations.

In G. Selvam v. B. Rajyalakshmi, 2005 (3) MLJ 385, this Court held that a Tenant is expected to pay monthly Rents regularly without any default and it is not necessary that the Landlord should make demands every month or take proceedings under Section 11 (4) of the Act.

In S. Rajam v. Raja Stores, 2005 (4) MLJ 195, this Court held that just because the Landlords were receiving Rent in lump sum it does not mean they had given a go by to the monthly tenancy. The Landlords did not have any other option because the tenant was not regular in payment of Rents and his conduct in not being regular even after filing of the RCOP only confirms wilful default.

Further in Dinesh Kumar v. Dr. Indira Bai, 2007 (2) MLJ 976, this Court held that Tenant has no right to accumulate Rents and pay in lump sum and he is expected to pay Rents without demand from the Landlord.

In V. Kannadasan and others v. K. Swaminatha Pathar, 2007 (2) CTC 127 : 2007 (1) TLNJ 377, this Court held that irregular payment of Rents pending the Eviction Petition can be taken into account to Order eviction.

In H.J. Siwani and another v. U. Ugam Bhai, 2007 (5) CTC 254 : 2007 (6) MLJ 1572, this Court held that there is no duty on the part of the Landlord to make a demand every month. Duty is only on the Tenant to pay Rent regularly.

In K. Karuppiah v. B. Kubendran, 2009(2) CTC 595 : 2009(4) MLJ 174, this Court held that the subsequent conduct of tenant in non-payment of Rents even after filing of Eviction Petition can be considered in deciding the Evict ion Petition.

In Munusamy v. A. Rajpal, 2010 (2) MWN (Civil) 147 : 2010 (2) TLNJ 318, this Court held that wilful default is a stringent provision and tenant has a duty to pay Rents regularly every month without expecting any demand from the Landlord and failure to pay Rents regularly will render Tenant liable for eviction.

It is well settled that even during the pendency of the Rent Control proceedings/Appeal, it is the duty of the Tenant to pay the Rent promptly, as per the time schedule provided for, in the Lease Agreement, without any demand or as per the provisions contained in the Act Payment has been made only on 7.9.2012, for the period from January 2012 to 31st August 2012, i.e., for nearly eight months.

Though the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has contended that there was no arrears of payment of Rent, even as per the Payment Schedule provided in the Counter Affidavit, Rents have not been paid periodically As stated supra the Rent for the period from January 2012 to August 2012 has been paid only on 7.9.2012. Though the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that Rent has been periodically paid and that there was no default, there is absolutely no answer to the belated payment, for the above said period. Though the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that except the charges for the amenities. Rents have been paid periodically for the period, prior to the institution of the Rent Control proceedings and during the pendency of the Appeal, and all the issues, viz., wilful default, act of waste and nuisance, were pending adjudication in Appeals in RCA Nos. 542 and 526 of 2010, it is evident that during the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal, there is a default in payment of Rent. Though the Revision Petitions are directed against the orders, directing payment of Rent, under Section 11(4) of the Act and stoppage of proceedings, for non-payment of the Rent, yet that would not preclude this Court to consider, as to whether, there is any default in payment of Rent, during the pendency of the Appeal. It is the view of tins Court, arrears of Rent during the pendency of an Appeal, can be considered by this Court, at the Revisional stage also, through the order impugned is for a different period. As the jural relationship continues to exist, non-payment of Rent periodically amounts to default.

In such a view of matter, the contention of the Revision Petitioner that there rs no default in payment of Rent, cannot be countenanced. Even assuming that Amenity Charges have not been paid, due to denial of amenities, prior and during the pendency of the proceedings, that does not give any premium to the Tenant to make payments, clubbing two months Rent together, or make payments beyond the period, prescribed in the Lease Agreement or to make lumpsum payment for the period between January 2012 and August 2012, i.e., for 8 months.

The impugned Order, dated 31.8.2012, directing payment before 13.9.2012 has not been challenged immediately. The Revision Petitioner/Tenant has allowed the time to lapse. He has waited till an order on default has been made and thereafter, challenged both the orders, by way of two Revision Petitions. If the Order, dated 31.8.2012, is erroneous, it should have been challenged immediately. On default, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has ordered to stop the proceedings. The subsequent on lei has been passed due to failure in complying with the earlier Order, dated 31.8.2012.

Even though the learned Counsel has disputed the quantum of monthly Rent, taken into consideration by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, while ordering payment under Section 11(4) of the Act, as default in payment of periodical Rent is apparent on the face of record, stopping further proceedings in the Appeal and ordering eviction cannot be said to be manifestly illegal, warranting interference. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned Orders.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition are dismissed. No costs Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition rs also closed.