Chekka Ramaniah and anr. Vs. S. Mariappan and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- - the respondents herein purchased the petition premises under a sale deed dated 30.4.1984. soon after the execution of the sale deed, this fact was intimated to the tenants by the present landlords as well as by the prior owners. the landlords failed to prove their bona fide, in requiring the petition premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act in the case of each one of the tenants. the authorities below failed the consider that the single petition filed against all the tenants is not maintainable, in law and contrary to the ratio of the decision of this court in smt. the authorities below failed to consider the sufficiency of the occupation as required by the landlords for the purpose of carrying on his small medical shop. before the rent control appellate authority both the tenants as well as the landlords filed additional documents and adduced additional oral evidence. the authorities below failed to understand the scope of section 10(2)(1) of the act. it is not always necessary that the landlords should resort in a matter like this to proceedings under section 11(4) of the act. in the said notice, it is clearly stated that the monthly rent is rs.orderthanikkachalam, j.1. the tenants are the petitioners in all these revisions. the first respondent is the husband of the second respondent. the respondents are the owners of the premises bearing door no. 290, bharathi salai, pycrofts road, triplicane, madras-5. the petition for eviction was filed against all these tenants on the ground of owner's occupation under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the tamil nadu buildings (lease and rent control) act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). in so far as the tenants in c.r.p. nos. 2729 and 395 of 1991 are concerned, the eviction petitions were also filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under section 10(2)(i) of the act. the petitioners in c.r.p. nos. 2729 of 1989 and 395 of 1991 are the joint tenants under the respondents herein for the entire premises except three shops in the front portion of the ground floor on a monthly rent of rs. 1,000. the petitioner in c.r.p. no. 429 of 1991 is in occupation of one shop in the front portion of the ground floor on a monthly rent of rs. 300. the petitioner in cr.p. no. 100 of 1991 is in occupation of one shop in the ground floor on a monthly rent of rs. 175.2. in so far as the petition for eviction filed under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act is concerned, the landlord filed one single petition against all the tenants. the case of the landlords is as under: the respondents herein purchased the petition premises under a sale deed dated 30.4.1984. soon after the execution of the sale deed, this fact was intimated to the tenants by the present landlords as well as by the prior owners. some of the tenants attorned their tenancy in favour of the present landlords. the landlords are carrying on medical shop business at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane, madras-5, which is a rented building. they are now under the threat of eviction since their landlord filed a petition for eviction against them on the ground of additional accommodation. the first respondent herein is a chemist in simpson & co., and he has got wide experience in dealing with medicines. the landlords wanted to carry on their business in medicines in a big way, in the entire petition premises consisting of only ground and the first floor. the landlords are not in occupation of any other non-residential building of their own in the city of madras. the landlords sent notices to the tenants on 24.8.1984 calling upon them to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises. the petitioners in c.r.p. no. 2729 of 1989 evaded the service of notice. some of the tenants sent their replies on 6.9.1984 and on 14.9.1984 expressing their refusal to vacate the premises.3. the case of the tenants is as under:the petition for eviction is not maintainable since the business at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicate is being carried on by hindu undivided family, in which the first respondent is the kartha. the landlords are not carrying on any business of their own individually. there are four different portions let out separately to four different tenants. each portion is a building and therefore the landlord cannot file a single petition for eviction for his own occupation against all the tenants. the landlords failed to prove their bona fide, in requiring the petition premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act in the case of each one of the tenants. the landlords are now carrying on their business at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplieane, in a portion admeasuring about 100 sq.ft. the petition premises on the whole admeasuring about 4,000 sq.ft. hence, the entire petition premises may not be necessary for the landlords to carry on their small medical shop. the first petitioner in the eviction petition is employed in simpson & co. it is not known whether he is carrying on his business in medicines. it was therefore submitted that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlords in requiring the petition premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act.4. mariappan examined himself as p.w. i. jacob ramaniah, s. shanmugham, k. suresh kumar and arjun hariram were examined as respondents' witnesses. the landlord filed 19 documents. the tenants filed five documents. considering the facts arising in these casts, the rent controller came to the conclusion that the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act, accordingly eviction was ordered against all the tenants. aggrieved, the tenants preferred appeals before the rent control appellate authority. before the rent control appellate authority, the landlord tiled 39 additional documents and the tenants filed four additional documents. one nageswararao was examined as additional witness on the side of the tenants. p.w. i also gave additional oral evidence. considering the facts arising in these cases, the rent control appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the rent controller against ail the tenants. aggrieved, the tenants are in revision before this court.5. the learned senior counsel mr. r. krishnamoorthy, appearing for the petitioners in c.r.p. no. 2729 of 1989 submitted as under: the authorities below failed the consider that the single petition filed against all the tenants is not maintainable, in law and contrary to the ratio of the decision of this court in smt. chandra valli bai purshothant dass v. poonamchand mittal : air1976mad65 , recognising a part of the building, as a unit by itself under the act. a single petition for one requirement against different tenants occupying different units is not maintainable. the petition was filed by the individuals and the business was carried on by the hindu undivided family and that p.w. i is an employee in simpson and co., and therefore his evidence ought to have been rejected. the business alleged to have been carried on in a rented premises by the landlords is a small medical shop in an area of about 100 sq. feet and therefore the requirement of the landlords requiring the different units under the occupation of different tenants totally of an extent of 4,000 sq.ft. is patently mala fide especially in the absence of any claim for expansion of business or any evidence relating thereto. there is a lease deed executed between the prior landlord and the tenants for a period of 5 years and before the expiry of the said five years period, the petition for eviction under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act cannot be filed. the authorities below failed to consider the sufficiency of the occupation as required by the landlords for the purpose of carrying on his small medical shop. the bona fide requirement in the case of each of the tenant was not considered separately. application for additional document was allowed without giving any opportunity to explain those documents. no opportunity was given to cross-examine mariappan after his additional oral evidence. there is inconsistency in the evidence of p.w. i. the report of the commissioner ought not to have been relied on. the commissioner was not examined to prove his report. the premises no. 47, nagappa iyer street, madras-5 was converted into non-residential premises in the ground-floor as can be seen from ex.p-58 series. exs.f-20 to p-58 are not proved and they are also not relevant documents. it was, therefore, pleaded that the order of eviction may be set aside.6. the learned counsel mr. haridoss and miss bhanumathy appearing for the other tenants in their revisions while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel mr. r. krishnamoorthy, highlighted certain special features arising in their individual cases.7. the learned senior counsel mr. r. sundaravaradhan, appearing for the respondents/landlords submitted as under:the first respondent is a chemist. he was working in simpson and company as chemist and he is now retired. they are doing their medical shop business at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane, which is a rented premises. since the landlord of the said premises required the same for his occupation, the respondents herein filed the present petition for eviction against the tenants. no doubt, the landlords are doing their medical shop business in a rented premises, which admeasures approximately about 100 sq.ft. the petition premises is consisting of the ground floor and the first floor. the plinth area of the petition premises would be about 3,000 sq.ft. the landlords now wanted to shift their medical shop business from the rented premises and they desired to conduct their medical business in a big way in the petition premises. therefore, it is not correct on the part of the tenants to suggest that since the landlords are now doing their business in a smaller place and hence their requirement of the petition premises, which is larger in size is not bona fide. since the landlords required the entire premises bona fide one single petition is sufficient for seeking eviction against all the tenants. in a petition for eviction under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act, what is necessary to prove is the bona fide requirement of the landlord. in the present case, the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the entire petition premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. therefore, it is not correct on the part of the tenants to state that the bona fide requirement was not established in the case of each tenant. the petition premises was purchased for the purpose of doing their business. in clause (4) of the lease deed executed between the tenants and the prior owner of the premises, it is stated that if the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent, for the two consecutive months, then the landlord is entitled to ask for eviction. in the present case, the tenants in c.r.p. nos. 395 of 1991 and 2729 of 1989 committed wilful default in payment of rent. therefore, when the forfeiture clause begins to operate, it is open to the landlords to file a petition for eviction on any one of the grounds available to them. therefore, the proviso (d) to section 10(3)(a).(iii) of the act is not applicable to the facts of this case.8. after the respondents examined their additional witnesses and filed their additional documents, p.w. i was examined and his additional documents were also filed. therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the respondents to rebut the evidence produced by the landlords. it is not open to the tenants to suggest whether the accommodation sought for is sufficient or suitable to the business of the landlords. it is submitted that both the authorities below came to the concurrent conclusion that the requirement of the landlords is bona fide under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. hence, no interference is called for.9. i have heard the rival submissions.10. the petitioners in the eviction petition are husband and wife. they purchased the petition premises at no. 290, bharathi salai, triplicane, madras-5, under a sale deed dated 30.4.1984. according to the landlords, they are carrying on their medical shop business at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane, madras-5, which is a rented building. the landlords are now under threat of eviction. hence they required the petition premises bona fide under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. the first petitioner in the eviction petition is a pharmacist. he was working as pharmacist in simpson and company. the landlords filed a petition for eviction against five tenants and the sixth respondent is the sub-tenant under the fifth tenant. according to the petitioners, herein the landlords cannot file one single petition for eviction against all the tenants, since the portion under the occupation of each tenant is a separate building as contemplated under the act. therefore, according to the tenants, the landlords ought to have filed separate petitions for eviction against each of the individual tenant. the fact remains that the landlords required the entire petition premises for the purpose of running their own medical shop, which they are carrying on in a rented premises. since the landlords are requiring the entire petition premises for the purpose of carrying on their own business, the authorities below came to the conclusion that one single petition for eviction against all the tenants under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act is maintainable. in the decision reported in v.k.s. raghavan v. k.b. dayavathi 100 l.w. 303, this court while considering the petition for eviction filed under section 14(1)(b) of the act held that one common petition against all the tenants in the petition premises is sufficient and separate petitions against each one of the tenants need not be filed. the learned counsel for the tenants pointed out that the abovesaid decision was rendered while considering a petition filed under section 14(1)(b) of the act and hence that decision will not be applicable to the present case, where the petition was filed under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. it remains to be seen that eviction of a part or portion of the building can be asked under section 14(1)(b) of the act as in the case of filing a petition for eviction with regard to a portion of the building under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. therefore, the principle adumbrated in the abovesaid decision in v.k.s. raghavan v. k.b. dayavathi 100 l.w. 303, will also be applicable to the facts of this case. hence one petition can be filed against all the tenants if the entire building is required under section 10(3)(iii) of the act. a similar view was taken by this court while considering the petition filed under section 10(3)(c) of the act in t.k. krishnamurthy v. jagat textiles 94 l.w. 160. in the present case also, the landlords required the entire premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. therefore, one petition for eviction against all the tenants under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act is maintainable and no separate petition against each one of the tenants need be filed.11. the learned counsel for the tenants contended that the medical shop business which is being carried on at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane, madras-5, is a joint family business and the petitioners herein does not require the petition premises for the joint family business, but they require the petition premises for their own individual business. hence, the present petition filed by the landlords is not maintainable. the authorities below pointed out that the owner of the premises at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane madras-5, filed petition for eviction against the landlords herein. ex.p-1 is the copy of the order passed by the rent controller in h.r.c.o.p. no. 3819 of 1983. this would go to show that the first respondent herein is having a pharmacist certificate and the licence to conduct the medical shop at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane madras-5, exs. p-2 to p-9 would go. to show that the medical shop in premises at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane, madras-5 was a proprietary concern of the first respondent herein. therefore, the contention of the tenants that the medical shop business conducted at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane, was joint family business cannot be accepted. the tenants contended that there was a lease agreement between the tenants in c.r.p. no. 395 of 1991 and the prior owner of the petition premises one mr. r. shanmugham dated 24.5.1980, which was marked as ex.r-3. according to clause (4) in the rental agreement dated 24.5.1980, if the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent, for a consecutive period of two months then, it is open to the landlords to file a petition for eviction on any of the available grounds. in the present case, it was stated that the petitioners in c.r.p. no. 395 of 1991 committed wilful default in payment of rent for more than two months and therefore the landlords filed a petition for eviction and the eviction was also ordered by the authorities below and the revision is pending before the court. there is no such lease deed between the prior landlord and the other tenants. the proviso (d) to section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act prohibits filing a petition for eviction under this sub-section, before the expiry of the lease period if such lease agreement is in existence between the landlord and the tenant. in the present case, even according to the lease deed, if the tenant commits default in payment of rent for a consecutive period of two months, then petition for eviction can be filed. therefore, the said proviso will not be applicable to the facts of this case. hence, the eviction petition under section 10(3)(a)(iii) is maintainable in so far as the tenant in c.r.p. no. 395 of 1991 is concerned. the tenants contended that the landlords are conducting their medical shop business in a place admeasuring about 100 sq.ft. and if they required any portion for carrying on their own business in the petition premises, they can ask for eviction with regard to a part of the building. hence the requirement of the entire petition premises is not justifiable. further, the requirement of the entire building which stands in an area of 4,000 sq.ft. will be excessive for their use and therefore, the requirement of the landlords of the petition premises is not bona fide. it remains to be seen that the first respondent herein is a pharmacist. he is conducting a medical shop under the name and style of 'shobana medicals' at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane, madras-5. he wanted to conduct the said business in a big way in the petition premises. the petition premises is stated to be consisting of ground floor and the first floor, and the total plinth area according to the landlords would be about 3,000 sq.ft. hence, according to the landlords for the purpose of conducting their business in a big way, the entire petition premises would be sufficient for them. ex.p-55 is the certified copy of the order passed in h.r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984. according to ex.p-55, eviction was ordered against the respondent in c.r.p. no. 429 of 1991. the landlords filed exs.p-20 to p-54 as additional documents. a perusal of those documents would go to show that mariappan vacated the rented premises in which he was carrying on his medical shop business and at present he is conducting his shop at no. 39, parthasarathy naidu street, triplicane, madras-5. mariappan is residing at no. 47, nagappa iyer street. a commissioner was appointed to find out the nature of this building. according to the commissioner's report, the premises at no. 47, nagappa iyer street is a residential building. exs.p-20 to p-22 would go to show that at no. 39, parthasarathy naidu street, triplicane, madras-5, shobana medical stores is being conducted. it is stated that it is a rented building. but this was neither accepted nor denied by the tenants. according to ex.p-23 relating to the medical shop, the turnover is rs. 5,55,434. exs.p-23 to p-25 are balance sheets. ex.p-26 balance sheet which relates to the medical shop at parthasarathy naidu street which shows a turnover of rs. 3,00,000 till 31.3.1990. so also, ex.p-27 balance sheet shows the turnover is more than rs. 3,00,000. exs.p-29 to p-33 relates to the medical shop at no. 39, parthasarathy naidu street, triplicane. ex.p-34 is the ledger for the year 1986-87. ex.p-35 is the day-book for the year 1986-87. ex.p-36 is the day-book for the year 1988-89. so also, exs.p-37 to p-41 are all ledgers from the year 1987-88 to 1989-90. ex.p-54 is the copy of the order rendered by the supreme court dated 16.3.1988. exs.p-44 to p-55 would go to show that the landlords after vacating the premises at no. 274, bharathi salai, triplicane, conducted their medical shop business at no. 37, parthasarathy naidu street, triplicane, madras-5. this is also a rented building. one nageswara rao was examined as an additional witness on the side of the tenants. his evidence also would go to show that the landlords are conducting their business in a rented premises. the documents filed by the landlords would go to show that their business is going on expanding and their turnover is also steeply increasing. therefore, there is justification on the part of the respondents herein in requiring the entire petition premises for the purpose of carrying on their own business. therefore, it cannot be said that the plinth area of the petition premises is over and above their requirement.12. considering all these aspects, the authorities below came to the conclusion that the business of the landlords is expanding and therefore the requirement of the entire petition premises is bona fide. further, it is not for the tenants to suggest that the petition premises is not suitable or insufficient or more than sufficient for the purpose of conducting their (landlords) business. before the rent control appellate authority both the tenants as well as the landlords filed additional documents and adduced additional oral evidence. therefore at this stage, it is not fair to contend that adequate opportunity was not given by the appellate authority either to cross-examine the witness or to prove the additional documents. both the courts below on considering the facts and the evidence adduced both oral and documentary concurrently came to the conclusion that the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. in view of the said facts, i am unable to interfere with the order of eviction passed under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. on a careful consideration of the facts arising in these cases, i am also of the opinion that the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. hence, i am unable to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the authorities below under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act in respect of all the tenants. accordingly, the order of eviction passed under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act against all the tenants stands sustained. accordingly, the revisions are dismissed.13. c.r.p. no. 2729 of 1989 relates to the order passed under section 10(2)(i) of the act in r.c.o.p. no. 3354 of 1985. the petitioners herein are joint tenants under the respondents herein in respect of the petition premises, except three shops in the front portion. the tenants are paying a monthly rent of rs. 1.,000. the building is non-residential. according to the landlords the tenants are chronic defaulters in payment of rent. the landlords purchased the petition premises under a sale-deed dated 30.4.1984. the landlords requested the tenants to attorn the tenancy and pay the rent with effect from 1.5.1984. the tenants agreed to pay the rent. even then, the rent for two months was not paid. again another notice was issued calling upon the tenants to pay the arrears of rent. the tenants evaded the notice. hence, r.co.p. no. 3405 of 1984 was filed for eviction under section 10(2)(1) of the act. in the said petition, the tenants filed vakalath, but no arrears of rent was paid. since the counter was not filed, an ex parte order was passed in the petition, and that order was set aside on payment of costs on 11.1.1985. subsequently, on 23.1.1986, the tenants paid a sum of rs. 2,000 towards rent for may and june, 1984. again, they paid a sum of rs. 2,000 on 30.3.1985. subsequently they did not pay any rent. in r.co.p. no. 3405 of 1985 the default is from may to august, 1984. in the present petition the default is from september, 1984 onwards and not for the period mentioned in r.co.p. no. 3405 of 1984. therefore, according to the landlords, the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent in the present petition from september, 1984 onwards.14. in the counter filed by the tenants, they submitted as under:they did not commit wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlords. they admit that they are the tenants in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of rs. 1,000 under the present landlords. it is not correct to state that they evaded the notice sent by the landlords. it is not correct to state that the rent for the months of may and june, 1984 was not paid. the tenants came in as tenants under the prior owner of the petition premises. at the time of inception of the tenancy they paid an advance of rs. 10,000 to the prior owner. according to the agreement out of the monthly rent of rs. 1,000 payable rs. 200 is to be adjusted towards the advance amount. hence, the tenants were asked to pay only rs. 800 per month. accordingly they used to pay only rs. 800 per month till the advance amount is wiped out. the tenants tendered the rent as usual after deducting rs. 200 from the monthly rent of rs. 1,000 but the same was refused by the landlords. the landlords are fully aware of the fact that a sum of rs. 10,000 was paid by way of advance to the prior owner. the tenants have paid several amounts both in court and outside the court. only on account of refusal of the landlords to receive the sum of rs. 800 towards rent, the arrears accrued. therefore, according to the tenants they never committed wilful default in payment of rents as alleged.15. mariappan examined himself as p.w. i. raghavendra rao was examined as r.w. 1. exs.p-1 to p-7 were filed on the side of the landlords. the tenants did not file any document. considering the facts arising in this case, the rent controller came to the conclusion that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. accordingly eviction was ordered. on appeal, the rent control appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the rent controller and dismissed the appeal. aggrieved, the tenants are in revision before this court.16. the learned senior counsel mr. r. krishnamoorthy appearing for the tenants/ petitioners herein submitted as under:the authorities below failed to understand the scope of section 10(2)(1) of the act. the tenants have paid a sum of rs. 10,000 as advance at the time of inception of the tenancy to the prior landlord. this was proved by examining the prior landlord in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984. the rent control appellate authority erred in dismissing the application filed for sending the records in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984. there was a lease deed between the tenants and the prior landlord dated 24.5.1980 for a period of five years with an option to renew the same for another five years. therefore, the petition for eviction cannot be filed at this stage. when the earlier petition r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984 was pending, the landlords have no right to file another petition r.c.o.p. no. 3354 of 1985 as laid down by the division bench of this court reported in duragai animal v. r.t. mani (1989)1 l.w. 155. during the subsistence of the lease period, the landlords cannot file a petition for eviction as per the decision of the supreme court in modern hotel, gudur represented by m.n. narayanan v. k. radhakrishnaiah : [1989]2scr725 . the earlier petition filed by the landlords for wilful default in payment of rent in r.go.p. no. 3405 of 1984 was dismissed by the rent controller, the landlords have filed r.c.a. no. 207 of 1989, the appellate authority refused to hear both the appeals together. all the records have been filed by the tenants in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984 and therefore necessary records could not be produced in the present case before the rent controller. the receipt dated 22.5.1980 evidencing the payment of rs. 10,000 was filed as ex.r-9 in r.co.p. no. 3405 of 1984. the landlords did not inform the tenants about the purchase of the petition premises. shanmugham was examined as a witness, who confirmed the payment of rs. 10,000 by way of advance. when the first petition for eviction is pending, if there is any subsequent default in payment of rent, the landlords can file a petition under section 11(4) of the act. instead of that, a second petition for eviction under section 10(2)(1) of the act is not possible. therefore, h.r.c.o.p. no. 3354 of 1984 is liable to be dismissed in limine, since the tenants did not commit wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlords. therefore, the eviction order passed by the authorities below are not sustainable.17. the learned senior counsel mr. sundaravaradan, appearing for the landlords submitted as under: the petition premises was purchased by the landlords on 30.4.1984. the fact that the landlords purchased the petition premises was informed to the tenants directly, and in spite of that the tenants refused to pay the rent from 1.5.1984 onwards. the tenants in fact agreed to pay the rent to the present landlords. the landlords sent a notice on 24.8.1984. the tenants wilfully evaded this notice. on 24.9.1984, the landlords filed r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984 against the tenants for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for may, june, july and august, 1984. on the same date, h.r.c.o.p. no. 3406 of 1984 was also filed against all the tenants under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the act. both the petitions were posted for hearing on 31.10.1984. though, the counsel for the tenants took time for vakalath, no payment of arrears was made. since the arrears of rent was not paid and the counter was also not filed. in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984 the tenants were set ex parte. the tenants filed m.p. no. 11 of 1984 for setting aside the ex parte order and the ex pane order was set aside on payment of costs on 11.1.1985. after taking several adjournments, the tenants paid a sum of rs. 2,000 towards rent for may and june, 1984. thereafter, the tenants paid another rs. 2,000 on 30.3.1985 being the rent for july and august, 1984. thereafter they never paid any amount towards arrears of rent. therefore, the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent from may to august, 1984. for this arrears of rent r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984 was filed since even after filing the first petition, the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent hence, the present petition was filed for eviction under section 10(2)(i) of the act, since the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent from september, 1984 till the end of september, 1985. during the pendency of the evidence petition filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, if the tenants refused to pay the rent, or again committed wilful default in payment of rent, it is open to the landlords to file another petition under section 10(2)(1) of the act. it is not always necessary that the landlords should resort in a matter like this to proceedings under section 11(4) of the act. there is no evidence on record to show that the tenants paid a sum of rs. 10,000 to the prior landlord as advance. in the rental agreement between the tenants and the prior landlord, there was no mention about the payment of rs. 10,000 and the mode of adjustments as pleaded by them. even if a sum of rs. 200 is adjustable towards advance, the advance would have been wiped out much earlier. there is no request or demand made by the tenants to adjust the alleged advance. while rendering the decision in k. appa rao v. commissioner of income-tax, madras : (1962)2mlj280 , the full bench decision of this court on this point in durgai animal v. r.t. mani (1989)1 m.l.j. 155, was not brought to the notice of the division bench. it was, therefore, pleaded that both the authorities below were correct in coming to the conclusion that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. since the conclusions arrived at by both the authorities below are concurrent, no interference is called for.18. the tenants filed cm.p. no. 3148 of 1992 in c.r.p. no. 2729 of 1989 to receive the copy of the order passed in r.co.p. no. 3405 of 1984 as additional document in this revision. the landlords filed a counter opposing this petition.19. i have heard the rival submissions.20. the fact remains that the landlords filed a petition for eviction under section 10(2)(i).of the act. the fact that the petitioners herein are tenants in respect of petition premises under the respondents herein is not denied. the rent is stated to be rs. 1,000 per month. this fact was also not denied. the tenants were in occupation of the petition premises even prior to the purchase of the premises by the present landlords. the respondents herein purchased the petition premises on 30.4.1984. according to the landlords, the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent from september, 1984 till september, 1985. the landlords have already filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent against the tenants herein in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984. in that petition, the period of default is from may to august, 1984. during the pendency of r.c.o. p. no. 3405 of 1984, the present r.co.p. no. 3354 of 1985 was filed. according to the landlords, they intimated the fact about the purchase of the petition premises to the tenants, and they have also issued a notice calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent. but according to the landlords, that the service of notice was evaded by the tenants. therefore, according to the landlords, the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period and thereby rendering themselves liable to be evicted. according to the tenants they did not commit wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlords. according to the tenants at the time of inception of the tenancy they have paid a sum of rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord shanmugham. there was also an agreement between the prior landlord and the tenants to adjust rs. 200 out of the rent payable every month. therefore, according to them, they have got to pay rs. 800 per month and not rs. 1,000 per month. the tenants tendered the rent at the rate of rs. 800 per month but the landlords refused to receive the same. hence, there is no wilful default in payment of rent.21. thiru mariappan examined himself as p.w. i and filed exs.p-1 to ex.p-7. on the side of the tenants they did not come to the witness box but examined one ragavendra rao as d.w.i. no document was filed. the landlords purchased the petition premises on 30.4.1984. on 30.5.1985 they sent a notice ex.p-1 to the tenants. this was received by the tenants as evidenced by ex.p-2 acknowledgment. in the said notice, it is clearly stated that the monthly rent is rs. 1,000. in order to prove that the tenants have already paid a sum of rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord and there was an agreement between them, to adjust the said advance from the rent payable every month, no document was filed. in ex.r-3 (exhibit in previous matter) the rental agreement, between the prior landlord and the tenants, there is no mention about the payment of rs. 10,000 by way of advance as alleged by the tenants. according to ex.p-4, dated 23.1.1985, the tenants paid a sum of rs. 2,000 in court. according to exs.p-6 and p-7, a sum of rs. 2,000 was paid on 21.3.1984 and another sum of rs. 800 was paid on 10.10.1984 by way of pay order. this was not accepted by the landlords. according to the landlords, they returned this pay order, because when the rent is rs. 1,000 per month, the tenants have no business to send rs. 800 per month. therefore it was returned. on 3.5.1985,9.12.1985 the tenants paid rs. 2,000 and rs. 4,000 respectively. according to the landlords, the rent is due for a period of thirteen months from september, 1984 till september, 1985. the petition was filed on 17.10.1985. the tenants paid rs. 2,000 and rs. 4,000 totalling rs. 6,000. the arrears of rent for thirteen months comes to rs. 13,000. therefore there is still arrears of rent payable by the tenants.22. there is no particulars as to what is the date on which this rs. 10,000 was paid to the prior landlord. assuming if this amount of rs. 10,000 is to be adjusted at the rate of rs. 200 per month from the date of lease deed, viz., 24.5.1980, the said amount of rs. 10,000 would have been wiped out by 24.7.1984. on september, 1984, there was nothing left in the said amount of rs. 10,000 yet to be adjusted. even though no document was filed in the present proceedings by the tenants before the authorities below to show that they have paid a sum of rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord, the tenants now sought .to file by way of additional evidence, the order passed in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984 dated 25.11.1988 in c.m.p. no. 3148 of 1992. the landlords/respondents herein filed a counter opposing this application. the parties herein are parties in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984. in that proceedings, it was the case of the tenants that they have paid rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord. therefore, this fact was known to the landlords. no prejudice will be caused if this document is permitted to be filed as an additional document. further, it is an order of court and a public document. therefore, the certified copy of the order in r.go.p. no. 3405 of 1984 is permitted to be filed as an additional document and the same is marked as ex.r-1. accordingly c.m.p. no. 3148 of 1992 stands allowed.23. according to the facts arising in r.c.o.p. no 3405 of 1984, the petitioners herein came as tenants under shanmugham on 24.5.1980 as per the lease deed dated 24.5.1980. it is stated that two days prior to the date on 22.5.1980, the tenants herein paid rs. 10,000 as advance to the said r. shanmugham and he also issued a receipt for having received that amount from the tenants. that was filed as ex.r-9 in r.co.p. no. 3405 of 1988. the landlords herein contended in the said r.co.p. no. 3405 of 1984 that the said receipt ex.r-9 is not a true document. further it is not known as to why the tenants did not say in the counter filed in the present proceedings that a sum of rs. 10,000 was paid to r. shanmugham two days prior to execution of the lease agreement dated 24.5.1980. further more that receipt is not now before this court for verification. ex.r.9 in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984 appears to be a collusive document. if the document was a true, the existence of which would have been disclosed in the present proceedings. there was no explanation by the tenants herein as to why the existence of the said receipt ex.r-9 was not disclosed in the present proceedings. further, it is not the case of the tenants herein that in ex.r-9 it was stated that the said sum of rs. 10,000 will be adjusted by way of rs. 200 per month from the rent. at least the tenants could have examined the said shanmugham as a witness in the present proceedings. that was also not done in this case. again, the order passed in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984 is under appeal/revision. therefore, i consider that even by producing the order copy in r.c.o.p. no. 3405 of 1984, the tenants were unable to establish that they have paid rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord. even assuming that ex.r-9 is a genuine document and rs. 10,000 was paid as an advance two days prior to 24.7.1980, the advance amount would have been wiped out by july, 1984 itself. therefore, in september, 1984 there was no advance amount remaining to be adjusted. in view of all these facts, i hold that the tenants were unable to establish that they have paid an advance of rs. 10,000 to the prior landlord and that was to be adjusted by way of rs. 200 per month out of the rent payable. therefore, admittedly there is arrears of rent payable by the tenants for the petition period and hence the tenants are liable to be evicted under section 10(2)(1) of the act.24. another ground raised in this revision was that when the first petition for eviction under sec 10(2)(i) is pending, another petition under section 10(2)(1) cannot be filed and if there is any arrears of rent even after filing of the first petition, the landlords should resort to the proceedings under section 11 (4) of the act, and not to file another petition for eviction under section 10(2)(1) of the act for the default in payment of rent for the subsequent period. to support this proposition, the learned senior counsel for the tenants relied upon a decision of the division bench of this court reported in durgai ammal v. r.t. mani (1989)1 l.w. 155. on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the landlords pointed out that two petitions under section 10(2)(1) are possible for two different periods and it is not necessary for the landlords to resort to the proceedings under section 11 (4) of the act when the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent after the first petition was filed. to support this proposition, the learned counsel relied upon a full bench decision of this court reported in k. perumal chettiar v. v. muthusami : (1962)2mlj218 . it remains to be seen that before the division bench which rendered the decision in durgai ammal v. r.t. mani (1989)1 l.w. 155, the decision of the full bench of this court on this point was not brought to its notice.25. in durgai ammal v. r.t. mani (1989)1 l.w. 155, while delivering a separate but concurrent judgment, his lordship justice bellie while considering section 11 (4) of the act held that:36. therefore if during the rent control proceedings, the tenant does not pay rent, the landlord can file an application in that respect before the controller and the controller on his satisfaction will terminate the proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of premises. thus in the act a special machinery has been provided to deal with non-payment of rent by the tenant during pendency of the rent control proceedings. the landlord in disregard of or by-passing this provision cannot institute a fresh proceeding on the ground of non-payment of rent. this apart, even as per the petition itself during the proceedings the tenant was paying rent in lump sum some time even once in 12 months and the landlord has received them. therefore nonpayment of 7 months rent cannot be said to be wilful. it is not the landlord's case that this was not paid in spite of demands. therefore, the present petition i.e., h.r.c. no. 3487 of 1981, as regards the ground of non-payment of rent cannot be sustained. hence, the findings of the appellate authority that the tenant has committed wilful default and on this ground he is liable to be evicted has to be set aside.this is a decision rendered by the division bench of this court. but there is another full bench decision of this court rendered in k. perumal chettiar v. v. muthusami : (1962)2mlj218 , on this aspect wherein while considering the proviso to section 7 of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act (xviii of 1960) the full bench held as under:under the proviso to section 10(7) of the present act (xviii of 1960) though the language used is not quite clear, a landlord can file an application complaining of default for subsequent months during the pendency of an application on the ground of default in payment of rent for earlier months. the word 'other grounds' in the proviso must relate to the necessary grounds other than those which form the subject-matter of the previous petition.it is significant to note that the full bench decision of this court in k. perumal chettiar v. v. muthusami : (1962)2mlj218 , was not brought to the notice of the division bench of this court, while rendering its decision in durgai ammal r.t. mani (1989)1 l.w. 155.26. further, section 11 (4) is intended to prevent defaulters from continuing in possession of the property taking advantage of the pendency of an application without at the same time performing their own part of the obligations. the disability imposed by the section attaches only to the tenant. a proceeding under section 11 (4) of the act is intended to accelerate the long drawn proceedings under the act. therefore, if the landlord chooses to file another petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, for the subsequent period, when an earlier petition on the same ground is pending, he can do so, and there is no impediment for the same. there is no express prohibition in the act preventing the landlord from filing a second petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent while the earlier petition on the same ground is pending. therefore, in view of the above cited decision of the full bench of this court, the present eviction petition filed by the landlord herein under section 1()(2)(i) of the act is maintainable.27. thus on a careful consideration of the facts arising in this case, i am of the view that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. the explanation offered by the tenants would go to show that the default was committed deliberately. hence, i consider that the authorities below were correct in coming to the conclusion that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. therefore, i am not inclined to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on this ground. accordingly, this revision is also dismissed. 28. in the result, all the revisions are dismissed. there will be no order as to costs. time for eviction three months.

Judgment:
ORDER

Thanikkachalam, J.

1. The tenants are the petitioners in all these revisions. The first respondent is the husband of the second respondent. The respondents are the owners of the premises bearing door No. 290, Bharathi Salai, Pycrofts Road, Triplicane, Madras-5. The petition for eviction was filed against all these tenants on the ground of owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In so far as the tenants in C.R.P. Nos. 2729 and 395 of 1991 are concerned, the eviction petitions were also filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. The petitioners in C.R.P. Nos. 2729 of 1989 and 395 of 1991 are the joint tenants under the respondents herein for the entire premises except three shops in the front portion of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 429 of 1991 is in occupation of one shop in the front portion of the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. The petitioner in CR.P. No. 100 of 1991 is in occupation of one shop in the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 175.

2. In so far as the petition for eviction filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is concerned, the landlord filed one single petition against all the tenants. The case of the landlords is as under: The respondents herein purchased the petition premises under a sale deed dated 30.4.1984. Soon after the execution of the sale deed, this fact was intimated to the tenants by the present landlords as well as by the prior owners. Some of the tenants attorned their tenancy in favour of the present landlords. The landlords are carrying on medical shop business at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Madras-5, which is a rented building. They are now under the threat of eviction since their landlord filed a petition for eviction against them on the ground of additional accommodation. The first respondent herein is a chemist in Simpson & Co., and he has got wide experience in dealing with medicines. The landlords wanted to carry on their business in medicines in a big way, in the entire petition premises consisting of only ground and the first floor. The landlords are not in occupation of any other non-residential building of their own in the city of Madras. The landlords sent notices to the tenants on 24.8.1984 calling upon them to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises. The petitioners in C.R.P. No. 2729 of 1989 evaded the service of notice. Some of the tenants sent their replies on 6.9.1984 and on 14.9.1984 expressing their refusal to vacate the premises.

3. The case of the tenants is as under:

The petition for eviction is not maintainable since the business at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicate is being carried on by Hindu undivided family, in which the first respondent is the kartha. The landlords are not carrying on any business of their own individually. There are four different portions let out separately to four different tenants. Each portion is a building and therefore the landlord cannot file a single petition for eviction for his own occupation against all the tenants. The landlords failed to prove their bona fide, in requiring the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in the case of each one of the tenants. The landlords are now carrying on their business at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplieane, in a portion admeasuring about 100 sq.ft. The petition premises on the whole admeasuring about 4,000 sq.ft. Hence, the entire petition premises may not be necessary for the landlords to carry on their small medical shop. The first petitioner in the eviction petition is employed in Simpson & Co. It is not known whether he is carrying on his business in medicines. It was therefore submitted that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlords in requiring the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.

4. Mariappan examined himself as P.W. I. Jacob Ramaniah, S. Shanmugham, K. Suresh kumar and Arjun Hariram were examined as respondents' witnesses. The landlord filed 19 documents. The tenants filed five documents. Considering the facts arising in these casts, the rent controller came to the conclusion that the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, Accordingly eviction was ordered against all the tenants. Aggrieved, the tenants preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Before the rent control Appellate Authority, the landlord tiled 39 additional documents and the tenants filed four additional documents. One Nageswararao was examined as additional witness on the side of the tenants. P.W. I also gave additional oral evidence. Considering the facts arising in these cases, the rent control appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against ail the tenants. Aggrieved, the tenants are in revision before this Court.

5. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, appearing for the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 2729 of 1989 submitted as under: The authorities below failed the consider that the single petition filed against all the tenants is not maintainable, in law and contrary to the ratio of the decision of this Court in Smt. Chandra valli Bai Purshothant dass v. Poonamchand Mittal : AIR1976Mad65 , recognising a part of the building, as a unit by itself under the Act. A single petition for one requirement against different tenants occupying different units is not maintainable. The petition was filed by the individuals and the business was carried on by the Hindu undivided family and that P.W. I is an employee in Simpson and Co., and therefore his evidence ought to have been rejected. The business alleged to have been carried on in a rented premises by the landlords is a small medical shop in an area of about 100 sq. feet and therefore the requirement of the landlords requiring the different units under the occupation of different tenants totally of an extent of 4,000 sq.ft. is patently mala fide especially in the absence of any claim for expansion of business or any evidence relating thereto. There is a lease deed executed between the prior landlord and the tenants for a period of 5 years and before the expiry of the said five years period, the petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be filed. The authorities below failed to consider the sufficiency of the occupation as required by the landlords for the purpose of carrying on his small medical shop. The bona fide requirement in the case of each of the tenant was not considered separately. Application for additional document was allowed without giving any opportunity to explain those documents. No opportunity was given to cross-examine Mariappan after his additional oral evidence. There is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W. I. The report of the Commissioner ought not to have been relied on. The Commissioner was not examined to prove his report. The premises No. 47, Nagappa Iyer Street, Madras-5 was converted into non-residential premises in the ground-floor as can be seen from Ex.P-58 series. Exs.F-20 to P-58 are not proved and they are also not relevant documents. It was, therefore, pleaded that the order of eviction may be set aside.

6. The learned Counsel Mr. Haridoss and Miss Bhanumathy appearing for the other tenants in their revisions while adopting the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, highlighted certain special features arising in their individual cases.

7. The learned senior Counsel Mr. R. Sundaravaradhan, appearing for the respondents/landlords submitted as under:

The first respondent is a Chemist. He was working in Simpson and Company as Chemist and he is now retired. They are doing their medical shop business at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, which is a rented premises. Since the landlord of the said premises required the same for his occupation, the respondents herein filed the present petition for eviction against the tenants. No doubt, the landlords are doing their medical shop business in a rented premises, which admeasures approximately about 100 sq.ft. The petition premises is consisting of the ground floor and the first floor. The plinth area of the petition premises would be about 3,000 sq.ft. The landlords now wanted to shift their medical shop business from the rented premises and they desired to conduct their medical business in a big way in the petition premises. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the tenants to suggest that since the landlords are now doing their business in a smaller place and hence their requirement of the petition premises, which is larger in size is not bona fide. Since the landlords required the entire premises bona fide one single petition is sufficient for seeking eviction against all the tenants. In a petition for eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, what is necessary to prove is the bona fide requirement of the landlord. In the present case, the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the entire petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the tenants to state that the bona fide requirement was not established in the case of each tenant. The petition premises was purchased for the purpose of doing their business. In Clause (4) of the lease deed executed between the tenants and the prior owner of the premises, it is stated that if the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent, for the two consecutive months, then the landlord is entitled to ask for eviction. In the present case, the tenants in C.R.P. Nos. 395 of 1991 and 2729 of 1989 committed wilful default in payment of rent. Therefore, when the forfeiture clause begins to operate, it is open to the landlords to file a petition for eviction on any one of the grounds available to them. Therefore, the proviso (d) to Section 10(3)(a).(iii) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of this case.

8. After the respondents examined their additional witnesses and filed their additional documents, P.W. I was examined and his additional documents were also filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the respondents to rebut the evidence produced by the landlords. It is not open to the tenants to suggest whether the accommodation sought for is sufficient or suitable to the business of the landlords. It is submitted that both the authorities below came to the concurrent conclusion that the requirement of the landlords is bona fide under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Hence, no interference is called for.

9. I have heard the rival submissions.

10. The petitioners in the eviction petition are husband and wife. They purchased the petition premises at No. 290, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Madras-5, under a sale deed dated 30.4.1984. According to the landlords, they are carrying on their medical shop business at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Madras-5, which is a rented building. The landlords are now under threat of eviction. Hence they required the petition premises bona fide under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. The first petitioner in the eviction petition is a Pharmacist. He was working as Pharmacist in Simpson and Company. The landlords filed a petition for eviction against five tenants and the sixth respondent is the sub-tenant under the fifth tenant. According to the petitioners, herein the landlords cannot file one single petition for eviction against all the tenants, since the portion under the occupation of each tenant is a separate building as contemplated under the Act. Therefore, according to the tenants, the landlords ought to have filed separate petitions for eviction against each of the individual tenant. The fact remains that the landlords required the entire petition premises for the purpose of running their own medical shop, which they are carrying on in a rented premises. Since the landlords are requiring the entire petition premises for the purpose of carrying on their own business, the authorities below came to the conclusion that one single petition for eviction against all the tenants under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is maintainable. In the decision reported in V.K.S. Raghavan v. K.B. Dayavathi 100 L.W. 303, this Court while considering the petition for eviction filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act held that one common petition against all the tenants in the petition premises is sufficient and separate petitions against each one of the tenants need not be filed. The learned Counsel for the tenants pointed out that the abovesaid decision was rendered while considering a petition filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and hence that decision will not be applicable to the present case, where the petition was filed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. It remains to be seen that eviction of a part or portion of the building can be asked under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act as in the case of filing a petition for eviction with regard to a portion of the building under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the principle adumbrated in the abovesaid decision in V.K.S. Raghavan v. K.B. Dayavathi 100 L.W. 303, will also be applicable to the facts of this case. Hence one petition can be filed against all the tenants if the entire building is required under Section 10(3)(iii) of the Act. A similar view was taken by this Court while considering the petition filed under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act in T.K. Krishnamurthy v. Jagat Textiles 94 L.W. 160. In the present case also, the landlords required the entire premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, one petition for eviction against all the tenants under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act is maintainable and no separate petition against each one of the tenants need be filed.

11. The learned Counsel for the tenants contended that the medical shop business which is being carried on at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Madras-5, is a joint family business and the petitioners herein does not require the petition premises for the joint family business, but they require the petition premises for their own individual business. Hence, the present petition filed by the landlords is not maintainable. The authorities below pointed out that the owner of the premises at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane Madras-5, filed petition for eviction against the landlords herein. Ex.P-1 is the copy of the order passed by the Rent Controller in H.R.C.O.P. No. 3819 of 1983. This would go to show that the first respondent herein is having a Pharmacist certificate and the licence to conduct the medical shop at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane Madras-5, Exs. P-2 to P-9 would go. to show that the medical shop in premises at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Madras-5 was a proprietary concern of the first respondent herein. Therefore, the contention of the tenants that the medical shop business conducted at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, was joint family business cannot be accepted. The tenants contended that there was a lease agreement between the tenants in C.R.P. No. 395 of 1991 and the prior owner of the petition premises one Mr. R. Shanmugham dated 24.5.1980, which was marked as Ex.R-3. According to Clause (4) in the rental agreement dated 24.5.1980, if the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent, for a consecutive period of two months then, it is open to the landlords to file a petition for eviction on any of the available grounds. In the present case, it was stated that the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 395 of 1991 committed wilful default in payment of rent for more than two months and therefore the landlords filed a petition for eviction and the eviction was also ordered by the authorities below and the revision is pending before the Court. There is no such lease deed between the prior landlord and the other tenants. The proviso (d) to Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act prohibits filing a petition for eviction under this sub-section, before the expiry of the lease period if such lease agreement is in existence between the landlord and the tenant. In the present case, even according to the lease deed, if the tenant commits default in payment of rent for a consecutive period of two months, then petition for eviction can be filed. Therefore, the said proviso will not be applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the eviction petition under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) is maintainable in so far as the tenant in C.R.P. No. 395 of 1991 is concerned. The tenants contended that the landlords are conducting their medical shop business in a place admeasuring about 100 sq.ft. and if they required any portion for carrying on their own business in the petition premises, they can ask for eviction with regard to a part of the building. Hence the requirement of the entire petition premises is not justifiable. Further, the requirement of the entire building which stands in an area of 4,000 sq.ft. will be excessive for their use and therefore, the requirement of the landlords of the petition premises is not bona fide. It remains to be seen that the first respondent herein is a Pharmacist. He is conducting a medical shop under the name and style of 'Shobana Medicals' at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, Madras-5. He wanted to conduct the said business in a big way in the petition premises. The petition premises is stated to be consisting of ground floor and the first floor, and the total plinth area according to the landlords would be about 3,000 sq.ft. Hence, according to the landlords for the purpose of conducting their business in a big way, the entire petition premises would be sufficient for them. Ex.P-55 is the certified copy of the order passed in H.R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984. According to Ex.P-55, eviction was ordered against the respondent in C.R.P. No. 429 of 1991. The landlords filed Exs.P-20 to P-54 as additional documents. A perusal of those documents would go to show that Mariappan vacated the rented premises in which he was carrying on his medical shop business and at present he is conducting his shop at No. 39, Parthasarathy Naidu Street, Triplicane, Madras-5. Mariappan is residing at No. 47, Nagappa Iyer Street. A Commissioner was appointed to find out the nature of this building. According to the Commissioner's report, the premises at No. 47, Nagappa Iyer Street is a residential building. Exs.P-20 to P-22 would go to show that at No. 39, Parthasarathy Naidu Street, Triplicane, Madras-5, Shobana Medical stores is being conducted. It is stated that it is a rented building. But this was neither accepted nor denied by the tenants. According to Ex.P-23 relating to the medical shop, the turnover is Rs. 5,55,434. Exs.P-23 to P-25 are Balance Sheets. Ex.P-26 balance sheet which relates to the medical shop at Parthasarathy Naidu Street which shows a turnover of Rs. 3,00,000 till 31.3.1990. So also, Ex.P-27 balance sheet shows the turnover is more than Rs. 3,00,000. Exs.P-29 to P-33 relates to the medical shop at No. 39, Parthasarathy Naidu Street, Triplicane. Ex.P-34 is the ledger for the year 1986-87. Ex.P-35 is the day-book for the year 1986-87. Ex.P-36 is the day-book for the year 1988-89. So also, Exs.P-37 to P-41 are all ledgers from the year 1987-88 to 1989-90. Ex.P-54 is the copy of the order rendered by the Supreme Court dated 16.3.1988. Exs.P-44 to P-55 would go to show that the landlords after vacating the premises at No. 274, Bharathi Salai, Triplicane, conducted their medical shop business at No. 37, Parthasarathy Naidu Street, Triplicane, Madras-5. This is also a rented building. One Nageswara Rao was examined as an additional witness on the side of the tenants. His evidence also would go to show that the landlords are conducting their business in a rented premises. The documents filed by the landlords would go to show that their business is going on expanding and their turnover is also steeply increasing. Therefore, there is justification on the part of the respondents herein in requiring the entire petition premises for the purpose of carrying on their own business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plinth area of the petition premises is over and above their requirement.

12. Considering all these aspects, the authorities below came to the conclusion that the business of the landlords is expanding and therefore the requirement of the entire petition premises is bona fide. Further, it is not for the tenants to suggest that the petition premises is not suitable or insufficient or more than sufficient for the purpose of conducting their (landlords) business. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority both the tenants as well as the landlords filed additional documents and adduced additional oral evidence. Therefore at this stage, it is not fair to contend that adequate opportunity was not given by the Appellate Authority either to cross-examine the witness or to prove the additional documents. Both the courts below on considering the facts and the evidence adduced both oral and documentary concurrently came to the conclusion that the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. In view of the said facts, I am unable to interfere with the order of eviction passed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. On a careful consideration of the facts arising in these cases, I am also of the opinion that the landlords established their bona fide in requiring the petition premises under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Hence, I am unable to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the authorities below under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in respect of all the tenants. Accordingly, the order of eviction passed under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act against all the tenants stands sustained. Accordingly, the revisions are dismissed.

13. C.R.P. No. 2729 of 1989 relates to the order passed under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act in R.C.O.P. No. 3354 of 1985. The petitioners herein are joint tenants under the respondents herein in respect of the petition premises, except three shops in the front portion. The tenants are paying a monthly rent of Rs. 1.,000. The building is non-residential. According to the landlords the tenants are chronic defaulters in payment of rent. The landlords purchased the petition premises under a sale-deed dated 30.4.1984. The landlords requested the tenants to attorn the tenancy and pay the rent with effect from 1.5.1984. The tenants agreed to pay the rent. Even then, the rent for two months was not paid. Again another notice was issued calling upon the tenants to pay the arrears of rent. The tenants evaded the notice. Hence, R.CO.P. No. 3405 of 1984 was filed for eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act. In the said petition, the tenants filed vakalath, but no arrears of rent was paid. Since the counter was not filed, an ex parte order was passed in the petition, and that order was set aside on payment of costs on 11.1.1985. Subsequently, on 23.1.1986, the tenants paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards rent for May and June, 1984. Again, they paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 on 30.3.1985. Subsequently they did not pay any rent. In R.CO.P. No. 3405 of 1985 the default is from May to August, 1984. In the present petition the default is from September, 1984 onwards and not for the period mentioned in R.CO.P. No. 3405 of 1984. Therefore, according to the landlords, the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent in the present petition from September, 1984 onwards.

14. In the counter filed by the tenants, they submitted as under:

They did not commit wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlords. They admit that they are the tenants in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 under the present landlords. It is not correct to state that they evaded the notice sent by the landlords. It is not correct to state that the rent for the months of May and June, 1984 was not paid. The tenants came in as tenants under the prior owner of the petition premises. At the time of inception of the tenancy they paid an advance of Rs. 10,000 to the prior owner. According to the agreement out of the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 payable Rs. 200 is to be adjusted towards the advance amount. Hence, the tenants were asked to pay only Rs. 800 per month. Accordingly they used to pay only Rs. 800 per month till the advance amount is wiped out. The tenants tendered the rent as usual after deducting Rs. 200 from the monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 but the same was refused by the landlords. The landlords are fully aware of the fact that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid by way of advance to the prior owner. The tenants have paid several amounts both in court and outside the court. Only on account of refusal of the landlords to receive the sum of Rs. 800 towards rent, the arrears accrued. Therefore, according to the tenants they never committed wilful default in payment of rents as alleged.

15. Mariappan examined himself as P.W. I. Raghavendra Rao was examined as R.W. 1. Exs.P-1 to P-7 were filed on the side of the landlords. The tenants did not file any document. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. Accordingly eviction was ordered. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the tenants are in revision before this Court.

16. The learned senior counsel Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy appearing for the tenants/ petitioners herein submitted as under:

The authorities below failed to understand the scope of Section 10(2)(1) of the Act. The tenants have paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 as advance at the time of inception of the tenancy to the prior landlord. This was proved by examining the prior landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984. The Rent Control Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the application filed for sending the records in R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984. There was a lease deed between the tenants and the prior landlord dated 24.5.1980 for a period of five years with an option to renew the same for another five years. Therefore, the petition for eviction cannot be filed at this stage. When the earlier petition R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984 was pending, the landlords have no right to file another petition R.C.O.P. No. 3354 of 1985 as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court reported in Duragai Animal v. R.T. Mani (1989)1 L.W. 155. During the subsistence of the lease period, the landlords cannot file a petition for eviction as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Modern Hotel, Gudur represented by M.N. Narayanan v. K. Radhakrishnaiah : [1989]2SCR725 . The earlier petition filed by the landlords for wilful default in payment of rent in R.GO.P. No. 3405 of 1984 was dismissed by the Rent Controller, the landlords have filed R.C.A. No. 207 of 1989, the appellate authority refused to hear both the appeals together. All the records have been filed by the tenants in R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984 and therefore necessary records could not be produced in the present case before the Rent Controller. The receipt dated 22.5.1980 evidencing the payment of Rs. 10,000 was filed as Ex.R-9 in R.CO.P. No. 3405 of 1984. The landlords did not inform the tenants about the purchase of the petition premises. Shanmugham was examined as a witness, who confirmed the payment of Rs. 10,000 by way of advance. When the first petition for eviction is pending, if there is any subsequent default in payment of rent, the landlords can file a petition under Section 11(4) of the Act. Instead of that, a second petition for eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act is not possible. Therefore, H.R.C.O.P. No. 3354 of 1984 is liable to be dismissed in limine, since the tenants did not commit wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlords. Therefore, the eviction order passed by the authorities below are not sustainable.

17. The learned senior counsel Mr. Sundaravaradan, appearing for the landlords submitted as under: The petition premises was purchased by the landlords on 30.4.1984. The fact that the landlords purchased the petition premises was informed to the tenants directly, and in spite of that the tenants refused to pay the rent from 1.5.1984 onwards. The tenants in fact agreed to pay the rent to the present landlords. The landlords sent a notice on 24.8.1984. The tenants wilfully evaded this notice. On 24.9.1984, the landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984 against the tenants for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for May, June, July and August, 1984. On the same date, H.R.C.O.P. No. 3406 of 1984 was also filed against all the tenants under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Both the petitions were posted for hearing on 31.10.1984. Though, the counsel for the tenants took time for vakalath, no payment of arrears was made. Since the arrears of rent was not paid and the counter was also not filed. In R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984 the tenants were set ex parte. The tenants filed M.P. No. 11 of 1984 for setting aside the ex parte order and the ex pane order was set aside on payment of costs on 11.1.1985. After taking several adjournments, the tenants paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards rent for May and June, 1984. Thereafter, the tenants paid another Rs. 2,000 on 30.3.1985 being the rent for July and August, 1984. Thereafter they never paid any amount towards arrears of rent. Therefore, the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent from May to August, 1984. For this arrears of rent R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984 was filed since even after filing the first petition, the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent Hence, the present petition was filed for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act, since the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent from September, 1984 till the end of September, 1985. During the pendency of the evidence petition filed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, if the tenants refused to pay the rent, or again committed wilful default in payment of rent, it is open to the landlords to file another petition under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act. It is not always necessary that the landlords should resort in a matter like this to proceedings under Section 11(4) of the Act. There is no evidence on record to show that the tenants paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the prior landlord as advance. In the rental agreement between the tenants and the prior landlord, there was no mention about the payment of Rs. 10,000 and the mode of adjustments as pleaded by them. Even if a sum of Rs. 200 is adjustable towards advance, the advance would have been wiped out much earlier. There is no request or demand made by the tenants to adjust the alleged advance. While rendering the decision in K. Appa Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras : (1962)2MLJ280 , the Full Bench decision of this Court on this point in Durgai Animal v. R.T. Mani (1989)1 M.L.J. 155, was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. It was, therefore, pleaded that both the authorities below were correct in coming to the conclusion that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. Since the conclusions arrived at by both the authorities below are concurrent, no interference is called for.

18. The tenants filed CM.P. No. 3148 of 1992 in C.R.P. No. 2729 of 1989 to receive the copy of the order passed in R.CO.P. No. 3405 of 1984 as additional document in this revision. The landlords filed a counter opposing this petition.

19. I have heard the rival submissions.

20. The fact remains that the landlords filed a petition for eviction under Section 10(2)(i).of the Act. The fact that the petitioners herein are tenants in respect of petition premises under the respondents herein is not denied. The rent is stated to be Rs. 1,000 per month. This fact was also not denied. The tenants were in occupation of the petition premises even prior to the purchase of the premises by the present landlords. The respondents herein purchased the petition premises on 30.4.1984. According to the landlords, the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent from September, 1984 till September, 1985. The landlords have already filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent against the tenants herein in R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984. In that petition, the period of default is from May to August, 1984. During the pendency of R.C.O. P. No. 3405 of 1984, the present R.CO.P. No. 3354 of 1985 was filed. According to the landlords, they intimated the fact about the purchase of the petition premises to the tenants, and they have also issued a notice calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent. But according to the landlords, that the service of notice was evaded by the tenants. Therefore, according to the landlords, the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period and thereby rendering themselves liable to be evicted. According to the tenants they did not commit wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlords. According to the tenants at the time of inception of the tenancy they have paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord Shanmugham. There was also an agreement between the prior landlord and the tenants to adjust Rs. 200 out of the rent payable every month. Therefore, according to them, they have got to pay Rs. 800 per month and not Rs. 1,000 per month. The tenants tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 800 per month but the landlords refused to receive the same. Hence, there is no wilful default in payment of rent.

21. Thiru Mariappan examined himself as P.W. I and filed Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-7. On the side of the tenants they did not come to the witness box but examined one Ragavendra Rao as D.W.I. No document was filed. The landlords purchased the petition premises on 30.4.1984. On 30.5.1985 they sent a notice Ex.P-1 to the tenants. This was received by the tenants as evidenced by Ex.P-2 acknowledgment. In the said notice, it is clearly stated that the monthly rent is Rs. 1,000. In order to prove that the tenants have already paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord and there was an agreement between them, to adjust the said advance from the rent payable every month, no document was filed. In Ex.R-3 (exhibit in previous matter) the rental agreement, between the prior landlord and the tenants, there is no mention about the payment of Rs. 10,000 by way of advance as alleged by the tenants. According to Ex.P-4, dated 23.1.1985, the tenants paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 in court. According to Exs.P-6 and P-7, a sum of Rs. 2,000 was paid on 21.3.1984 and another sum of Rs. 800 was paid on 10.10.1984 by way of pay order. This was not accepted by the landlords. According to the landlords, they returned this pay order, because when the rent is Rs. 1,000 per month, the tenants have no business to send Rs. 800 per month. Therefore it was returned. On 3.5.1985,9.12.1985 the tenants paid Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 4,000 respectively. According to the landlords, the rent is due for a period of thirteen months from September, 1984 till September, 1985. The petition was filed on 17.10.1985. The tenants paid Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 4,000 totalling Rs. 6,000. The arrears of rent for thirteen months comes to Rs. 13,000. Therefore there is still arrears of rent payable by the tenants.

22. There is no particulars as to what is the date on which this Rs. 10,000 was paid to the prior landlord. Assuming if this amount of Rs. 10,000 is to be adjusted at the rate of Rs. 200 per month from the date of lease deed, viz., 24.5.1980, the said amount of Rs. 10,000 would have been wiped out by 24.7.1984. On September, 1984, there was nothing left in the said amount of Rs. 10,000 yet to be adjusted. Even though no document was filed in the present proceedings by the tenants before the authorities below to show that they have paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord, the tenants now sought .to file by way of additional evidence, the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984 dated 25.11.1988 in C.M.P. No. 3148 of 1992. The landlords/respondents herein filed a counter opposing this application. The parties herein are parties in R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984. In that proceedings, it was the case of the tenants that they have paid Rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord. Therefore, this fact was known to the landlords. No prejudice will be caused if this document is permitted to be filed as an additional document. Further, it is an order of court and a public document. Therefore, the certified copy of the order in R.GO.P. No. 3405 of 1984 is permitted to be filed as an additional document and the same is marked as Ex.R-1. Accordingly C.M.P. No. 3148 of 1992 stands allowed.

23. According to the facts arising in R.C.O.P. No 3405 of 1984, the petitioners herein came as tenants under Shanmugham on 24.5.1980 as per the lease deed dated 24.5.1980. It is stated that two days prior to the date on 22.5.1980, the tenants herein paid Rs. 10,000 as advance to the said R. Shanmugham and he also issued a receipt for having received that amount from the tenants. That was filed as Ex.R-9 in R.CO.P. No. 3405 of 1988. the landlords herein contended in the said R.CO.P. No. 3405 of 1984 that the said receipt Ex.R-9 is not a true document. Further it is not known as to why the tenants did not say in the counter filed in the present proceedings that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid to R. Shanmugham two days prior to execution of the lease agreement dated 24.5.1980. Further more that receipt is not now before this Court for verification. Ex.R.9 in R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984 appears to be a collusive document. If the document was a true, the existence of which would have been disclosed in the present proceedings. There was no explanation by the tenants herein as to why the existence of the said receipt Ex.R-9 was not disclosed in the present proceedings. Further, it is not the case of the tenants herein that in Ex.R-9 it was stated that the said sum of Rs. 10,000 will be adjusted by way of Rs. 200 per month from the rent. At least the tenants could have examined the said Shanmugham as a witness in the present proceedings. That was also not done in this case. Again, the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984 is under appeal/revision. Therefore, I consider that even by producing the order copy in R.C.O.P. No. 3405 of 1984, the tenants were unable to establish that they have paid Rs. 10,000 by way of advance to the prior landlord. Even assuming that Ex.R-9 is a genuine document and Rs. 10,000 was paid as an advance two days prior to 24.7.1980, the advance amount would have been wiped out by July, 1984 itself. Therefore, in September, 1984 there was no advance amount remaining to be adjusted. In view of all these facts, I hold that the tenants were unable to establish that they have paid an advance of Rs. 10,000 to the prior landlord and that was to be adjusted by way of Rs. 200 per month out of the rent payable. Therefore, admittedly there is arrears of rent payable by the tenants for the petition period and hence the tenants are liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act.

24. Another ground raised in this revision was that when the first petition for eviction under Sec 10(2)(i) is pending, another petition under Section 10(2)(1) cannot be filed and if there is any arrears of rent even after filing of the first petition, the landlords should resort to the proceedings under Section 11 (4) of the Act, and not to file another petition for eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act for the default in payment of rent for the subsequent period. To support this proposition, the learned senior counsel for the tenants relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Durgai Ammal v. R.T. Mani (1989)1 L.W. 155. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the landlords pointed out that two petitions under Section 10(2)(1) are possible for two different periods and it is not necessary for the landlords to resort to the proceedings under Section 11 (4) of the Act when the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent after the first petition was filed. To support this proposition, the learned Counsel relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in K. Perumal Chettiar v. V. Muthusami : (1962)2MLJ218 . It remains to be seen that before the Division Bench which rendered the decision in Durgai Ammal v. R.T. Mani (1989)1 L.W. 155, the decision of the Full Bench of this Court on this point was not brought to its notice.

25. In Durgai Ammal v. R.T. Mani (1989)1 L.W. 155, while delivering a separate but concurrent judgment, His Lordship Justice Bellie while considering Section 11 (4) of the Act held that:

36. Therefore if during the rent control proceedings, the tenant does not pay rent, the landlord can file an application in that respect before the Controller and the Controller on his satisfaction will terminate the proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of premises. Thus in the Act a special machinery has been provided to deal with non-payment of rent by the tenant during pendency of the rent control proceedings. The landlord in disregard of or by-passing this provision cannot institute a fresh proceeding on the ground of non-payment of rent. This apart, even as per the petition itself during the proceedings the tenant was paying rent in lump sum some time even once in 12 months and the landlord has received them. Therefore nonpayment of 7 months rent cannot be said to be wilful. It is not the landlord's case that this was not paid in spite of demands. Therefore, the present petition i.e., H.R.C. No. 3487 of 1981, as regards the ground of non-payment of rent cannot be sustained. Hence, the findings of the appellate authority that the tenant has committed wilful default and on this ground he is liable to be evicted has to be set aside.

This is a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. But there is another Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in K. Perumal Chettiar v. V. Muthusami : (1962)2MLJ218 , on this aspect wherein while considering the proviso to Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) the Full Bench held as under:

Under the Proviso to Section 10(7) of the present Act (XVIII of 1960) though the language used is not quite clear, a landlord can file an application complaining of default for subsequent months during the pendency of an application on the ground of default in payment of rent for earlier months. The word 'other grounds' in the Proviso must relate to the necessary grounds other than those which form the subject-matter of the previous petition.

It is significant to note that the Full Bench decision of this Court in K. Perumal Chettiar v. V. Muthusami : (1962)2MLJ218 , was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court, while rendering its decision in Durgai Ammal R.T. Mani (1989)1 L.W. 155.

26. Further, Section 11 (4) is intended to prevent defaulters from continuing in possession of the property taking advantage of the pendency of an application without at the same time performing their own part of the obligations. The disability imposed by the section attaches only to the tenant. A proceeding under Section 11 (4) of the Act is intended to accelerate the long drawn proceedings under the Act. Therefore, if the landlord chooses to file another petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, for the subsequent period, when an earlier petition on the same ground is pending, he can do so, and there is no impediment for the same. There is no express prohibition in the Act preventing the landlord from filing a second petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent while the earlier petition on the same ground is pending. Therefore, in view of the above cited decision of the Full Bench of this Court, the present eviction petition filed by the landlord herein under Section 1()(2)(i) of the Act is maintainable.

27. Thus on a careful consideration of the facts arising in this case, I am of the view that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. The explanation offered by the tenants would go to show that the default was committed deliberately. Hence, I consider that the authorities below were correct in coming to the conclusion that the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the authorities below on this ground. Accordingly, this revision is also dismissed. 28. In the result, all the revisions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Time for eviction three months.