Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition which arises out of a petition for eviction filed by the respondent herein on the ground that the petitioner had wilfully defaulted in the payment of rent. Admittedly, the premises in question belongs to the respondent and had been leased out to the appellant for the purpose of running a hotel. According to the landlord, the monthly rent that is payable in respect of this premises leased out to the petitioner is Rs. 145/-, whereas, according to the petitioner, the rent is only Rs. 70/-. The respondent claimed that the petitioner had not paid the rents for five months, that is from Margali to Panguni of Nala year and Chitrai of Pingala year and thereby committed wilful default in the payment of the rent and therefore, he is entitled to an order for eviction. 2. The petitioner resisted the said petition on the ground that the monthly rent was only Rs. 70/- and that he had paid the amonnt till the month of Chitrai of Pingala year and there were no arrears whatever and therefore there was no question of default, much less wilful default. 3. The learned Rent Controller found that the monthly rent was Rs. 145/- and that the tenant had not paid it for the period in question and therefore, he had committed wilful default in the payment of rent and accordingly passed an order for eviction. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in C.M.A. 14 of 1978. The learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the conclusion of the learned Rent Controller and held that the petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rent and confirmed the order of eviction. 4. In this civil revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the view taken by the Appellate Authority on the question of wilful default is incorrect. According to him, after the receipt of the notice, Ex. A2, from the landlord demanding the arrears, the petitioner sent money order on 5th July, 1977, that is, within a period of two months and consequently, there cannot be any wilful default which would justify an order of eviction being passed against the petitioner. According to him, after the receipt of the notice, Ex. A2, from the landlord demanding the arrears, the petitioner sent money order on 5th July, 1977, that is, within a period of two months and consequently, there cannot be any wilful default which would justify an order of eviction being passed against the petitioner. It may be stated that under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as they stood prior to the Amending Act 23 of 1973, there was no provision as to what exactly wilful default meant. By amending Act 23 of 1973, an Explanation was added to Sub-S.(2) of S. 10 of the principal Act. The Explanation reads thus— “For the purpose of this sub-section default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two months notice by the landlord claiming the rent”. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on this Explanation and contends that in the instant case in so far as the rents have been paid within two months after the receipt of the notice, Ex. A2, there cannot be any question of wilful default on the part of the petitioner in the payment of rent. A reading of the Explanation indicates that it is not exhaustive of all cases of wilful default, but it specifies only one instance where the default should be construed as wilful. If a tenant does not pay the rents at all for a considerable time and the landlord files a petition for an order of eviction on the basis that the tenant had committed wilful default without issuing any notice, then, in the absence of any other explanation by the tenant, the default should be construed as wilful, in spite of the fact that the landlord had not chosen to issue a notice to the tenant claiming the refits. In this view, I hold that the Explanation relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be of any assistance to him. In the instant case, though there was some dispute with regard to the quantum of rent, there is no explanation offered by the petitioner for the non-payment of even the admitted rent of Rs. 70/- every month. In the instant case, though there was some dispute with regard to the quantum of rent, there is no explanation offered by the petitioner for the non-payment of even the admitted rent of Rs. 70/- every month. The petitioner would no doubt allege that a note book in which the payments of rents were entered had been left in the custody of the wife of the respondent herein. But there is no acceptable evidence with reference to the same. In the absence of any explanation by the petitioner for the non-payment of rents as and when they fell due, the default should be construed only as wilful and the Courts below were therefore, perfectly right when they passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. The civil revision petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed with costs. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that some time may be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises and the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the grant of three months to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Accordingly the petitioner is given three months time from today to vacate the premises.