M ARUMUGHAM Vs. ALAGAMMAI ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition arises under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) as amended by Act 23 of 1973, herein after referred to as the Act. THE tenant is the Revision Petitioner. THE respondent landlady initiated proceedings under Sec. 10 (2) (1) of the Act for his eviction alleging that he had committed wilful default in the payment of rent from January 1995 till January 1996 and had become liable to be evicted. Her case as set out in the R.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1996 before the Rent Controller, Karaikudi was as follows: THE revision petitioner became a tenant under her in respect of the property belonging to her bearing Door No. 82, Muthupattinam II Street, Karaikudi Nagar for a monthly rent of Rs. 60 computed according to the English Calendar month. He was a chronic defaulter. He was paying rent till October 1992. THEreafter taking advantage of her helplessness started creating evidence as if he had sent the rents. He filed R.C.O.P.No. 25 of 1993 purporting to be under Sec. 8(5) of the Act and obtained an ex parte order on 15.2.1994. Till December 1994 he was accmulating monthly rent and depositing the same into the court and thereafter from January 1995 till January 1996 he wilfully did not deposit the rent into court. This he did with ulterior motives and the eviction proceedings were therefore necessitated.

(2.) THE revision petitioner resisted the eviction proceedings inter alia contending as follows:

(3.) THE next question to be considered is whether this could be termed to be wilful default. Mr. Sundar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the word employed in the Section is 'may' and not 'shall' and therefore even assuming that the revision petitioner had not deposited the rent , notwithstanding the order in his favour in the Sec. 8(5) application, it could not to be termed to be wilful default.@BT-BIG =