Judgment:
ORDER
Srinivasan, J.
1. The landlord is the petitioner. The petition for eviction has been filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period 1.7.1976 to 1.4.1980. The petition was filed on 24.1.19S0. The monthly rent was Rs. 125. The total amount due for the said period was Rs. 5,875 out of which the tenant had paid Rs. 3,725 in driblets on various occassions. The balance due as on the date of the filing of the petition was Rs. 2,150.
2. Before the filing of the petition, the landlord had issued a notice on 3.8.1979 terminating the tenancy with the end of August, 1979. He had called upon the tenant to pay the arrears of rent due as on that date. The amount due on that date was Rs. 1,325 which was arrived by deducting a sum of Rs. 3,500 which was paid by the tenant by then towards the total rent of Rs. 4,825 due for the period 1.7.1976 to 31.7.1979. To the notice dated 3.8.1979, the tenant sent a reply on 25.8.1979 under Ex. A-4 wherein he denied the arrears. He sent a demand draft for Rs. 400 in the name of the petitioner's mother. The petitioner did not accept the draft and returned the same.
3. In the petition for eviction, the tenant admitted the ownership of the property with the petitioner and also the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. The contention of the tenant is that he used to pay the rent in accumulated sums once in few months and that has been the practice from the inception. According to him, there are no arrears at all. A sum of Rs. 375 was paid by him by way of advance and a sum of Rs. 3,000 was paid by way of Pagadi to be adjusted in the rent. He claimed that as June, 1976 he was liable to pay Rs. 50 by way of arrears and not Rs. 200 as claimed by the landlord. It is further stated that a vacant site as taken in addition for a monthly rent of Rs. 50. He had paid Rs.l50by way of advance and Rs. 275 representing 5 1/2 months rent in advance. Thus, the tenant paid Rs. 425. According to him that should be adjusted in the rent due for the building, as the vacant site was not delivered to him. It is the further case of the tenants that Rs. 125 was paid to Meenakshi Sundaram, a servant of the petitioner's mother on 28.11.1977.
4. The Rent Controller found that the case of the tenant that rent was being paid in lumpsum was not proved. He relied on the documentary evidence on record and held that rent was being paid monthly and the tenant was bound to pay in every month as-and when it accrues. Secondly, it was held that the tenant was guilty of wilful default on the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Rent Controller ordered eviction.
5. The appellate authority did not disturb the finding that rent is to be paid every month and not in one lumpsum. However, he took a curious view that on the date of Ex. A-3 the amount due being Rs. 1,325 the tenant had sent with his reply Ex. A-4 a sum of Rs. 400 leaving a balance of Rs. 925. A sum of Rs. 425 paid by way of advance for the vacant site should also be deducted and that thus the balance will be Rs. 500 only. The appellate authority held that the said sum of Rs. 500 represented the arrears of rent which accrued subsequent to Ex. A-3 dated 3.8.1979. He has also held that the conduct of the tenant shows that he is not in wilful default though he has committed default. As regards the subsequent arrears also. The appellate authority has taken the view that if the tenant had any intention not to pay the rent, he would not have paid any amount and that the fact that he had paid some amounts shows that he would not have committed any wilful default. On that finding, the appellate authority has reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction.
6. On the face of it, the order of the appellate authority is. wholly unsustainable. The view taken by him that the balance due of Rs. 500 even as calculated by him on 3.8.1979 would represent the arrears accrued subsequent to that date is erroneous. He has himself found that the amount due as on the date of Ex. A-3 was Rs. 1,325. When he has deducted a sum of Rs. 825 there from, naturally it follows that the balance of Rs. 500 was due as on that date representing the past arrears. If the tenant had not paid the said amount within two months there from, the explanation to the Proviso to Section 10(2) of the Act would automatically come into play. Hence, the tenant must be held in law to have committed wilful default.
7. Even assuming that the explanation is not applicable to the present case, there is no doubt whatever that the tenant has committed wilful default. The course of conduct as seen from the facts already slated will show that he had been supinely indifferent in the matter of payment of rent. The fact that he has been irregular in making payment raising a false plea that he used to pay only in lumpsum once in a few months will show that he has committed default wilfully. On 3.8.1979, the total amount payable was Rs. 4,825 against which he had paid only Rs. 3,500 and the balance was Rs. 1,325. Even assuming that the adjustment made by the appellate authority for the amount sent by him subsequent to the notice, viz. Rs. 400 and a sum of Rs. 425 paid by way of advance for the vacant site is given effect to, there is still a balance of Rs. 500. The tenant has no explanation for not paying the same. Even after the said notice dated 3.8.1979, the tenant has again fallen in arrears. In the subsequent period of eight months, the tenant should have paid Rs. 1,000 towards the rent but had paid only a total amount of Rs. 225 leaving a balance of Rs. 775. Thus, on the date of the petition, the total amount due from the tenant was Rs. 2,150. If the adjustment of Rs. 825 made by the appellate authority is accepted, there will be still a balance of Rs. 1,325 as on the date of the petition.
8. There is no valid explanation at all on the part of the tenant for non-payment of the said amount. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent.
9. Learned Counsel for the tenant contends that he has obtained a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the vacant site in his favour. It is stated that the said decree been passed in 1992. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that an appeal has already been filed against the said decree. Whatever may be the merits of the case of the tenant in the suit for specific performance, in so far as these proceedings are concerned, the respondent is a tenant of the petitioner and he is liable to be evicted as he has committed wilful default. If ultimately the decree obtained by the respondent is confirmed in the Appellate Court, it will be open to him to execute that decree and realise the consequential benefits and the twill not be aground for resisting this revision petition filed by the landlord.
10.In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, the order of the appellate authority in R.C.A. No. 24 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller, viz., Rent Controller, Kancheepuram in R.C.O.P. No. 17 of 1980 is restored. The petitioners will get their the costs in the revision petition.