ABDUL HAMEED Vs. M SULTAN ABDUL KADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT was served through Court. There is no representation on his behalf. Heard Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner - tenant.

(2.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order in R. C. A. No. l of 1990 dated 9. 4. 1991 on the file of the Rent Control appellate Tribunal (Sub Court), nagapattinam, reversing the order passed in R. C. O. P. No. 14 of 1986 dated 31. 10. 1989, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Nagapattinam.

(3.) AS rightly pointed out by Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, the appellate authority has failed to take into account the attendant circumstances of the case in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner - tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent for January, 1985 to December, 1985. In this regard, the Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate and take into consideration the admitted fact that the agent of the landlord used to collect the rent only periodically and not regularly and the accumulated rent used to be paid only whenever the agent comes to the shop of the petitioner and like tenants. In my opinion of court the appellate authority has failed to take into account that to constitute wilful default, the default should be intentional, deliberate and with full knowledge of the legal consequences flowing therefrom. Admittedly, the entire arrears as on the date of the petition was paid along with the counter affidavit on the very first hearing. This would show that absolutely there is no wilful default in the payment of rent.