M K SANKARAN Vs. S BIRLASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant who suffered an order of eviction before the authorities below has filed the above revision.

(2.) THE landlords/petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. 381 of 1981 under Sections 10(2)(i) and 14(1)(b) of the Act 18 of 1960. According to them, the rent was at Rs.220 per month and the tenant respondent paid an advance of Rs. 1,000. The landlords got the property in question by virtue of a registered partition deed dated 12.11.1980 entered into between the landlords and their brothers. According to them, the tenant has paid rent irregularly till the end of September, 1980 and failed to pay the subsequent months rent despite the repeated demands made by the landlords through their agents, and the arrears of rent was Rs. 1,760 for the period from October, 1980 to the end of May, 1981. On that basis they came forward with the plea that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent. They also wanted the premises in question for demolition and reconstruction. The tenant contested the eviction petition by filing a detailed counter. The learned Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif, Madurai accepting the case of the landlords ordered eviction on both the grounds. The tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 145 of 1990 on the file of the learned appellate authority/Principal Sub -Judge, Madurai, who rejected the case of the landlords regarding their requirement under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, but concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default and found that the tenant had committed default wilfully. Aggrieved against the same the tenant petitioner has filed the above revision.

(3.) FROM the above discussion, and the findings of the authorities below, it will be clear that the default alleged is only with respect to the amount retained by the tenant for payment of property tax. Though the authorities below found that the tenant has committed default with respect to the payment of the said amount, there is no discussion at all by the authorities below, whether such default cannot be construed as wilful unless it is proved that such default is due to supine indifference on the part of the tenant.