Smt. K. Gnanambal vs K. Mani

S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—The unsuccessful landlady in seeking order of eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from

the petition non-residential premises bearing door No.10, Patel Road, Perambur, Madras-11, before the learned Rent Controller and as confirmed

by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, is the revision petitioner.

The landlady filed the Rent Control Original Petition, in which it is set out that the respondent is the tenant in respect of the petition shop on a

monthly rent of Rs.750/-. The respondent is a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and committed default in payment of rent from November, 1992

to April, 1993 totalling to the extent of Rs.4,500/-. R.C.O.P.No.1154 of 1993 was filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of

rent which was resisted by the respondent by filing counter and stating that the landlady is to adjust the arrears of rent, viz., Rs.9,250/- from and

out of the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- relating to the period from November, 1992 to October, 1993 and the balance towards the rent for the

month of November, 1993. After filing of the R.C.O.P.No.1154 of 1993 the respondent paid Rs.1,500/- on 17.9.1993 and Rs.500/- on

23.12.1993 and totalling such payment along with the balance amount of Rs.250/-, which was available after adjustment as stated above and

therefore, such amount viz., Rs.2,250/- was adjusted towards the rental amount payable for the months of November and December, 1993 and

January, 1994. Earlier, R.C.O.P.No.303 of 1991 was also filed for eviction on the ground that the respondent/tenant had put the premises for

different purpose other than for which it was let out. The respondent/tenant failed to pay the rent from February, 1994 to March, 1995 and as

such, the respondent committed default in payment of rent wilfully.

The Rent Control Original Petition was opposed in the counter admitting the quantum of rent and further stating that the sum of Rs.10,000/- paid

towards advance is available with the landlady towards adjustment in payment of arrears of rent and in fact, the landlady agreed to adjust it in the

rent payable from November, 1992 onwards. The rent tendered for the month of February, 1994 directly to the landlady was refused stating that

R.C.O.P.No.1154 of 1993 was already filed for eviction. The earlier R.C.O.P.No.303 of 1991 filed for eviction was also dismissed. The

respondent has not committed default in payment of rent deliberately for the period of February, 1994 to March, 1995 and as such, such default in

payment of rent cannot be construed as wilful. Even on the date of first hearing i.e. on 28.7.1995, the respondent entered appearance and filed

vakalath through counsel and tendered Pay Order bearing No.362892 dated 26.7.1995 for Rs.13,500/- drawn on Madras Central Co-operative

Bank Limited, Perambur Branch, Madras-11 and on that date, the landlady, her husband and her counsel were absent. Such tender was also

recorded by the learned Rent Controller on 28.7.1995 and from which date the matter was adjourned to file counter to 11.8.1995 and reposted

to 25.8.1995 since the learned Rent Controller was on casual leave. The revision petitioner/landlady, her husband and her counsel were absent

even on 25.8.1995. Further, the revision petitioner''s husband refused to receive the Pay Order for Rs.13,500/- towards monthly rent from

February, 1994 to June, 1995 and also another Pay Order bearing No.362934 dated 14.8.1995 drawn on Madras Central Co-operative Bank

Limited, Perambur Branch, Chennai-11 for Rs.750/- for the month of July, 1995. So, the respondent caused lawyer notice on 18.8.1995

requesting the landlady to receive the Pay Order for Rs.13,500/- and also the sum of Rs.750/-. Therefore, the respondent has not committed wilful

default in payment of rent as claimed by the landlady.

Before the learned Rent Controller, the landlady''s husband examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. The respondent

himself examined as R.W.1, besides R.W.2 Tmt.Manjini and marked Exs.R-1 to R-36. The learned Rent Controller, despite the fact that the

tenant as R.W.1 admitted in his evidence that the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- less one month rent towards advance, was adjusted and even

after adjusting the advance amount of Rs.9,250/-, the rent from February, 1994 to 31.7.1995 was paid for 18 months nearly Rs.13,500/- by way

of Pay Order sent under Ex.R-1 which was acknowledged under Ex.R-2 and also paid rent for the month of August, 1995 by way of Pay Order

sent under Ex.R-3 which was acknowledged under Ex.R-4, dismissed the Rent Control Original Petition, recording finding that the

respondent/tenant has not committed default wilfully as claimed from February, 1994 to July, 1995, in that the arrears of rent during the said

months are to be adjusted from the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- which admittedly was already adjusted towards the rent payable till January,

1994. Such order of the learned Rent Controller was confirmed in the Rent Control Appeal by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also

recording finding as such. The order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlady. None appeared on behalf of the respondent/tenant.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlady argued that inasmuch as the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was adjusted as also

admitted by the tenant as R.W.1 in his evidence till for the month of January, 1994 and since the rent from February, 1994 to July, 1995 was only

paid as per Pay Order for Rs.13,500/- sent under Ex.R-1, such default committed by the respondent is deliberate and amounts to wilful. The

learned counsel has relied on the following decisions:-

(1) Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society etc., - vs. C.T.Uthandi reported in 1988-2 Law Weekly 216, in which this Court has held:-

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18/1960), Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(c), Pleadings. Wilful default and bona fide

requirement for additional accommodation for non-residential purposes. Satisfactory explanation for non-payment of rent necessary for defence in

an action for wilful default. Mere payment of rent after the petition is filed without offering satisfactory explanation for non-payment cannot be

accepted by way of defence.

No hard and fast rule as to relieving of disqualification of tenant in case of non-payment of rent. If payment of arrears is to be a defence there can

never be an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default, if the tenant who has been indifferent all along, suddenly becomes wiser and pays the

rent after the Rent Control Petition is filed.

(2) T. Easwara Rao Vs. N.E. Ansari(decd) and six others, , in which this Court has held:-

TamilNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 10(2)(i). Deposit of rent on first date of hearing. Tenant did not pay rent for

more than one year in spite of notice demanding rent. Landlord filing petition for eviction on ground of wilful default. Tenant depositing unpaid rent

on first date of hearing and pleading that in view of this deposit, default cannot be construed as wilful. Plea of tenant negatived. Accepting such

submission amounts to rewriting provisions of Enactment. Merely because tenant deposits arrears of rent on first date of hearing, it cannot be said

that landlord cannot sustain petition for eviction if it is otherwise established that tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent. Such deposit

has to be considered along with other facts to decide whether default is wilful or not.

(3) K.S.Pandian - vs. - G.Rukmani Bai and three others reported in 2001(1) C.T.C. 356, in which this Court has held:-

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 10(2)(i). Effect of payment of arrears before filing of petition but after issuing

of notice of termination and eviction. Tenant paying entire arrears after issue of notice of termination and eviction. Landlord can accept rent under

protest or may not accept rent. Landlord can in either case file petition for eviction. Landlord accepting rent without any demur resulting in payment

of arrears of rent on date of filing petition for eviction would result in dismissal of such petition.

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 8(2) and 10(2)(i). Landlords right to pursue petition for eviction would not be

lost by tenant depositing arrears of rent or expressing willingness to deposit arrears of rent at first hearing of petition.

(4) Manickkampillai - vs. - A.Sakuntala and others reported in 2002-1 Law Weekly 796, in which this Court has held:-

In Section 10(2)(i) the conduct of tenant is treated as default if the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent ""due by him"". Tenant cannot sleep over

the matter endlessly and happily without paying even the admitted rent for 15 months.

Refusal on the part of landlord to receive is not an excuse for tenant for not paying admitted rent. Conduct of tenant, held, amounted to supine

indifference.

Depositing entire arrears before the first hearing does not absolve the tenant''s conduct of default.

(5) R. Govindhammal, R. Hariharanathan, R. Umapathy, R. Ravindharan and R. Kesavan Vs. A. Nirmala, , in which this Court has held:-

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), Section 10(2)(i). Wilful default to pay rent. Landlords refusing to receive the

rent. Tenant not taking any step to deposit the same in Court. Amounts to wilful default. Mere deposit of arrears on receipt of summons or on the

date of first hearing of the case would not rectify the defect.

(6) Nagammal - vs. - I.Boomi and another reported in 2002 4 L W 150, in which, this Court has held:-

It cannot be laid down as an universal rule that whenever the tenant deposits the arrears of rent into Court at the first hearing of the case, the

tenant should be absolved from the term ""wilful default"". It is, thus, clear that the tenant has offered explanation for not paying the rent and

depositing the rent only after the R.C.O.P. is filed. Therefore, it is clear that the fact that the tenant deposited the rent into Court at the first hearing

of R.C.O.P. alone is not a valid ground for coming to a conclusion that the default in the payment of rent is not wilful. There can be no dispute that

the question whether the non-payment of rent would tantamount to supine indifference on the part of the tenant can be inferred from certain

admitted facts.

If the tenant is able to give valid explanation for non-payment of rent till the same is deposited into Court, then there would be no difficulty in

holding that the tenant has not committed wilful default.

The landlady filed R.C.O.P.No.1154 of 1993 in June, 1995, copy of which is marked as Ex.P-2, in which it is stated that the respondent has

not paid the rent from November, 1992 to April, 1993 and totalling Rs.4,500/-. That petition was resisted in the counter, copy of which is marked

as Ex.P-3, in which it is stated that the rental arrears from November, 1992 to October, 1993, viz., Rs.9,000/- is to be adjusted in the advance

amount of Rs.10,000/- leaving Rs.750/- as advance being one month rent and the balance amount of Rs.250/- is to be adjusted towards rent for

the month of November, 1993. It is further stated that the rent for December, 1993 less Rs.250/- is payable. So, it is clear that as per the petition

and counter in R.C.O.P.No.1154 of 1993, the rent for the months of November, 1992 to October, 1993, viz., Rs.9,000/- was adjusted from and

out of the advance amount of Rs.10,000/-. During the pendency of the said R.C.O.P.No.1154 of 1993, the respondent paid Rs.1,500/- on

17.9.1993 and also Rs.500/- on 23.12.1993 and both the said payments and the sum of Rs.250/-, the balance advance amount out of

Rs.10,000/- after adjusting Rs.9,000/- towards the rent for the months of November, 1992 to October, 1993, have been adjusted, towards the

rent for the months of November and December, 1993 and January, 1994 for three months. Therefore, it is claimed by the landlady that the

respondent has committed wilful default in payment of rent thereafter and from February, 1994 to March, 1995.

The tenant as R.W.1 has also admitted in his evidence that after such adjustment till January, 1994, the rent payable for the months of February,

1994 to July, 1995, for 18 months was paid as per Pay order sent under Ex.R-1 dated 18.8.1995 i.e. after filing of the Rent Control Original

Petition. The Rent Control Original Petition No.1145 of 1995 was filed on 20.4.1995. The first hearing date of the R.C.O.P.1145 of 1995 was

28.7.1995 on which date, the respondent/tenant entered appearance and filed vakalath through his counsel and tendered the Pay Order Ex.R-1

for Rs.13,500/-, but the revision petitioner, her husband and her counsel were not present on that date. In such circumstances, the claim of the

respondent that he has not committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of February, 1994 to March, 1995 is without any force, in

that the tenant is expected to pay rent regularly every month.

Previously R.C.O.P.No.1154 of 1993 was filed, claiming arrears of rent and the tenant filed counter on 23.12.1993 that the rent payable for the

months of November, 1992 to October, 1993 is to be adjusted from the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- leaving one month rent being advance,

and the balance sum of Rs.250/- is to be adjusted in the rent payable for the month of December, 1993. Therefore, the respondent was fully

aware of the fact that even after adjusting the advance amount, the rent payable by him is from December, 1993 less Rs.250/-, the balance

advance amount available for adjustment. But the tenant failed to pay the rent and sent the Pay Order under Ex.R-1 for Rs.13,500/- only on

18.8.1995 representing the rent for the months from February, 1994 to July, 1995. Such default in payment of rent deliberately is to be construed

as wilful. There have been supine indifference and callousness on the part of the respondent in not paying the rent for the period from February,

1994 to March, 1995 and such default is to be construed as wilful. It follows the finding recorded by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority

that the default committed by the respondent cannot be construed as wilful, is improper. Both the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent

Control Appellate Authority have not considered properly that the advance amount of Rs.10,000/- was adjusted towards the rent payable for the

months of November, 1992 to October, 1993, and the subsequent payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.1,500.00 + Rs.500/-) and the balance amount of

advance of Rs.250/- was adjusted towards the rent for the months of November and December, 1993 and January, 1994. If follows that the

tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1994 to March, 1995. Merely because the tenant sent the Pay Order for

Rs.13,500/- under Ex.R-1 towards rent for 18 months from February, 1994 to July, 1995 on 18.8.1995 it cannot be said that such default

committed in payment of rent from February, 1994 to March, 1995 is not wilful, in that the tenant was fully aware of the adjustment of advance

amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,500/- paid on 17.9.1993 and Rs.500/- paid on 23.12.1993 towards rent for the months of November, 1992 to

January, 1994. So, the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are to be set aside.

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2001 made by the learned Rent

Control Appellate Authority by ordering eviction in the Rent Control Original Petition. Time for eviction three months.