P RAYEN Vs. SEYED ALI FATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who lost before the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner herein. THE respondent filed R.C.O.P. for eviction under Secs.10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Act 18 of 1960.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows:

(3.) THE Rent Controller has given a finding that after issue of notice by the landlord, the tenant paid the arrears in lump sum and that he has committed wilful default. R.W.1, the tenant has admitted in his evidence that he received a notice dated 8.5.1991 i.e., Ex.R-1. He has also admitted that the rent due for four months was subsisting on the date of Ex.R-1 notice. Even though the above notice was issued in the year 1991, R.C.O.P. is filed in the year 1992 i.e., on 2.7.1992. R.W.1, the tenant has also admitted that four months rent mentioned in Ex.R-1 notice and also the subsequent rent was deposited in Court only after 2.7.1992. He has also admitted that as per the agreement, he is liable to pay the rent every month. Explanation to Sec.10(2) of the Act states that default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two months notice by the landlord claiming the rent. In this case, on the date of issue of notice, rent due for four months was subsisting. R.W.1 did not issue any reply to the above notice nor did he tender the rent within two months after receipt of the above notice. In receiving the notice has to be held to be wilful. THE very fact that R.W.1 paid the rent mentioned in the notice and also along with subsequent arrears only after filing R.C.O.P. will clearly show that the non-payment of rent by R.W.1 is nothing but wilful.