(1.) THE respondent in R. C. O. P. No. 70 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras , is the revision petitioner.
(2.) THE landlady sought eviction of the revision petitioner on two grounds viz. , (1) default in payment of rent. It is said that rent for the months of July, 1991 to December, 1991 were defaulted (2) THE building is required bona fide for her own occupation. It is stated that the landlady and her family members are now living in New Delhi and they want to settle at Madras andthe building in question is the only building owned by her at Madras and the landlady and her family members need the building for their own occupation.
(3.) IT is the case of the landlady that even though such a letter was sent and received by the tenant, they refused to pay the rent and continued to deposit the amount in the accounts of the deceased original owner, which is not' payment' to the landlady. Since the amount is deposited in dead person' s account, the same also could not be collected. The case that is further put forward is that the tenant knew that she was the sole heir and that she was impleaded as the legal heir of the deceased Padma Srinivasan in R. C. O. P. No. 974 of 1991. Even after she was made party to the proceeding, it did not agree to pay the rent in her account. This attitude of the tenant, according to the landlady, has only to be characterised as wilful default, the consequence of which is to direct eviction of the tenant from the building.