S.Vadivel (Died) vs Rani on 21 April, 2017
''Under the said Act, only to presume wilful default in payment of rent, explanation to Section 10(2)(i) has been introduced. So, if the submission of the learned counsel is accepted it amounts to rewriting the provision of the Act. Such a presumption as suggested by the learned counsel cannot be arrived at, merely because fter three years if a tenant deposits or pays the rent on the first hearing date without any valid reason. For example, if a tenant did not pay any rent inspite of two months' notice, under Explanation to Section 10(2) (i) of the Act, then the legal presumption is wilful and the landlord need not further establish the same.'
As already stated, it is nowhere stated in Section 10 of the Act that the landlord should issue notice to the tenant calling upon him to pay arrears of rent before filing eviction petition. But if the landlord gives notice to the tenant claiming arrears of rent, then he has to wait for two months and in that event only, the failure to pay rent even after the expiry of two months from the date of notice, will amount to wilful default. If the above course is adopted b the landlord and if it is proved that the tenant failed to pay rent even after the expiry of two months' notice, the landlord need not prove anything to establish that the tenant has committed wilful default. The Court has also held in the above decision that the Court can enter a finding taking into consideration the conduct of the tenant to consider whether the default is wilful and no notice is required. In view of the above decision, I am unable to sustain the contention of the revision petitioner that as the landlord failed to issue notice as contemplated in the explanation, the tenant cannot be said to have committed default in payment of rent. It is contended on behalf of the landlord that the tenant has not tendered or deposited rent within time and that the mere fact that the tenant has deposited six months', rent at Rs.300/- per mensum in the civil suit, will not absolve the tenant from the definition of wilful default. Admittedly, the tenant has not deposited the arrears of rent in the Court of Rent Controller. Even admitting but not conceding that the agreed rent is Rs.300/- only, the revision petitioner/tenant is not justified in not paying even the said rent or deposited within time. Even assuming that the landlord refused to receive the rent of Rs.300/- per meneum, the legal course open to the tenant is to issue notice to the landlord requiring the landlord to specify the name of the bank into which the rent could be deposited. If the landlord does not specify the bank, it is open to the tenant to remit the rent to the landlord by money order. Further, Section 8 of the Act enables the tenant to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller if the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by money order. It is thus, seen that Section 8 of the Rent Control Act provides procedure for tendering rent to the landlord. The tenant has not resorted to the above remedy contained in Section 8 of the Act for depositing the rent. Learned counsel for the landlord also pointed out the consequences which the tenant has to face for non-compliance of Section 8 of the Act. In this case, the tenant filed suit, in the month of September 1999 and deposited arrears of rent due for the period from March 1999 to August 1999. If really there is any truth in the case of the tenant that the landlord refused to receive the rent and that he demanded enhanced rent, the tenant should have issued notice contemplated under Section 8 of the Act to the landlord and deposited the rent before the Rent Controller. The above conduct of the tenant will only show that the default in payment of even the admitted rent is nothing but wilful.''