B ANRAJ PIPADA Vs. V UMAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the stay petition was listed, the main C.R.P., itself had been taken up for final disposal, since the short question involved is whether the petitioner has committed any wilful default in paying the rent. The respondent herein is the landlord of the petition premises. He filed R.C.O.P.No.2418 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller. Madras to evict the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default, since he has failed to pay the rent from December, 1987 to June, 1988. The petitioner filed a counter stating that he had not committed any wilful default and that since the respondent failed to pay the property tax, the Corporation Officials insisted that the petitioner should pay the tax. Without paying the tax, he had deposited the rent in the bank. The Rent Controller by his order dated 24.6.1993 allowed the petition for eviction finding that the respondent has not produced any document to establish his defence of depositing the rents in the bank. Further as there is no obligation on the part of the tenant to pay the Corporation Tax, the petitioner ought not to have retained the money to pay the tax and as such the non-payment of the rent by the petitioner is wilful. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred an appeal R.C.A.No.904 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The appellate authority concurred with the finding of the Rent Control and dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 2.7.1997. The present revision has been filed against the said order.

(2.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not commit any wilful default because the usual practice adopted by the tenant is to pay the rent in lumpsum as and when the landlord ask for the rent. Admittedly the rents have not been paid regularly even during the pendency of the proceedings since the landlord has not asked for the same. In fact the petitioner had sent a draft for a sum of Rs.19,500 dated 12.5.1997 representing the arrears of rent up to 1st May, 1997 and the draft has not been handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent or to the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner represents that it is the mistake on his part and he requested further time to pay the arrears up-to-date.

(3.) YET another judgment reported in Poorman's Depot Registration Firm v. Krishnan, (1997)2 M.L.J. 467, wherein it has been held as follows: