A DHARMALINGAM Vs. PALANISAMY GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the tenant against the decree for eviction passed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The respondent had purchased the premises from the previous owner on 28/1/1983. On 9/5/1983, he gave a notice to the appellant informing him about the said purchase and also staling that the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent from 1/2/1983. Thereafter, another notice was served by the respondent on 26/12/1983. The appellant deposited rent for the months of April 198 3/01/1984 but he did not deposit the rent for the months of February and March 1983. He has raised the plea that the rent for these two months was paid by him to the previous owner of the premises since he was informed about the purchase by the respondent only by notice dated 9/5/1983 and that he could not be said to have committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of February and March 1983. It is true that the appellant was informed about the purchase by notice dated 9/5/1983. But after the service of the said notice there was no justification for the appellant to withhold payment of rent to the respondent for the months of February and march 1983. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no wilful default on the part of the appellant in the payment of rent for the months of February and march 1983. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. But in the circumstances, the appellant is given time to hand over vacant possession of the premises on or before 31/12/1994 subject to the filing of the usual undertaking within a period of six weeks from today. No order as to costs.