N. ARUMUGAM Vs. R. RAMACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) A petition was filed against the present appellant by the landlord for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. There was some dispute between the parties about the payment of the amount of Rs 1,580.00. The trial Court after having examined the affidavits held that the appellant was guilty of committing wilful default in payment of rent. The trial Court overlooked the fact that the expression 'default' is qualified by the adjective 'wilful'. The dispute between the parties was about payment of Rs 1,580.00 by the tenant to the landlord. Evidence was led by both the parties in assertion of their respective contentions. May be the Court ultimately accepted the version of the landlord about the payment; but that by itself without anything more is not indicative of the default being wilful. Ground for eviction as set out in the relevant statute is 'wilful default' and not any default or lapse in payment of rent. 'wilful' would imply purposive or intentional default or gross negligence in payment of rent. A bona fide contention pleading payment of rent and failure to prove it to the court's satisfaction would not clothe the failure to prove payment as wilful default in payment of rent so as to afford a ground for eviction. If the view taken by the High Court is upheld, a tenant to save his lease must pay up a second time on the being evicted for his failure to prove the pain of payment.

(3.) Against the decree of eviction the percent appellant preferred an appeal to the appellate authority. The appellate authority examined the matter in correct perspective and cane to the conclusion that the tenant could not be held guilty of wilful default in payment of rent. Accordingly,the appellate authority allowed the appeal and dismissed the landlord's petition for eviction. The landlord look the matter to the High Court invoking its revisioral jurisdiction.