JUDGMENT: The tenant is the petitioner. The landlord who is the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No.307 of 1977 for getting an order of eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent from 1-7-1970 to 30-6-1977. It is the case of the petitioner herein that he became the tenant in the year 1930 and only subsequent to his tenancy, the respondent herein became the owner of the property in 1942. According to the petitioner, there is no question of any default much less wilful default in the payment of rents and that the calculations given by him in his counter statement will leave an excess of Rs.201.15 in the hands of the respondent herein. Both the authorities below found wilful default on the part of the petitioner herein and ordered eviction. It is as against these orders, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the tenant. 2. Mr. R.Alagar, learned counsel for the petitioner narrated the events from the year 1970 and submitted from the facts of the case that there is neither default nor wilful default on the part of the petitioner herein in the payment of rents. On the other hand, Mr. K.Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out the adjustments made by the petitioner herein in respect of payment of property tax, submitted that this will amount to wilful default in the payment of rent and for this proposition, cited the decision of this Court in Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swarnam-bal Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swarnam-bal (1984)2 MLJ.6 = (1984) 97 L.W.182. Apart from this aspect of the case, Mr.K.Ramaswami learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even in the matter of deposit of rents both in the court and also at the post office savings account, the petitioner was not regular in deposit and that can be easily verified from the documents on record. I have been taken through the evidence, pleadings and the orders of the courts below. 3. In order to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and as to whether any wilful default has been committed by the petitioner herein, it is but necessary to state the events that finally culminated in the filing of R.C.O.P.No.307 of 1977. 4. In 1930, the petitioner, herein Became the tenant. In 1942 the respondent herein became the owner of the suit property. 4. In 1930, the petitioner, herein Became the tenant. In 1942 the respondent herein became the owner of the suit property. It is the case of the petitioner that he went to Ceylon on a pilgrimage in 1970 after putting his brother-in-law one Panchanatham in charge of the shop in question. The said Panchanatham colluded with the respondent and brought about a registered lease deed dated 7-8-1970 as if the shop was leased to him by the respondent. That lease deed mentions a sum of Rs.100/- as the rent payable per month for the suit shop. The said Panchanatham filed O.S.No.1330 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tiruchirapalli for an injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with his possession. That suit was dismissed for default on 15-2-1972. It is seen from Exhibit B-23 that the respondent herein filed O.S.No.1985 of 1973 against the petitioner and Panchanatham for a declaration that Panchanatham is his tenant and the petitioner herein is the sub-tenant. On 9.1.1975 this suit was dismissed holding that the petitioner herein is a direct tenant under the respondent. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal A.S.No.294 of 1976 before the Sub Court, Tiruchy and the said appeal was also dismissed on 27-12-1976. Thus, it is clear from the above said facts that the petitioner has been recognised as’ the direct tenant under the respondent herein. 5. 0.S.No.712 of 1976 is the suit filed by the respondent herein for arrears of rent from Panchanatham in which the petitioner was a party. On 23-8-1979 the said suit was dismissed. Even prior to this suit, the petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.106 of 1971 praying for permission for depositing the rent into the court. The petitioner was driven to the necessity of filing this petition after sending five money orders as evidenced by Exhibits B-1 to B-5 for the period from August 1970 to December 1970 and that was refused by the respondent herein. On 16-8-1973, R.C.O.P.No. 106 of 1971, was ordered and the petitioner was permitted to deposit the rents into the court of the Rent Controller. In R.C.O.P.No.115 of 1971, the respondent herein filed an eviction petition against Panchanatham and the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default and sub-letting. That petition was dismissed as early as on 16-8-1973. On 16-8-1973, R.C.O.P.No. 106 of 1971, was ordered and the petitioner was permitted to deposit the rents into the court of the Rent Controller. In R.C.O.P.No.115 of 1971, the respondent herein filed an eviction petition against Panchanatham and the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default and sub-letting. That petition was dismissed as early as on 16-8-1973. As against the dismissal of this petition and also as against the direction in R.C.O.P.No.106 of 1971, the landlord filed CM.A.Nos.248 and 249 of 1973. Both these appeals were dismissed on 11.4.1977 holding that there is no sub-letting nor any wilful default on the part of the tenant. As regards the direction to deposit the money, the appellate court upheld the order of the Rent Controller. No revision was filed as against these orders. The common judgment in CM.A.Nos.248 and 249 of 1973 is evidenced by the document Exhibit B-22. In this judgment in which the respondent is the appellant, the court has specifically observed: “In the deposit application for six months rent of Rs.174/- at Rs.29/-per month Rs.87/- was deposited after adjusting the property tax paid.” This judgment further holds in categoric terms that the petitioner is the direct tenant of the respondent herein. After the dismissal of C.M.As.Nos.248 and 249 of 1973 on 11-4-1977, the respondent herein called upon the petitioner under Exhibit A-1 dated 9-5-1977 to pay rent from 1-7-1970 to 30-4-1977. Exhibit A-2 is the reply sent by the petitioner on 6-6-1977 giving the details of the amounts deposited in the post office savings account, the amount deposited in court and also the amount paid as property tax. Subsequent to this reply, the respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No. 307 of 1977 alleging wilful default for the period from 1970 to 1977. The Rent Controller found that there is wilful default in the payment of rent from June 1972 to November 1972, from April, 1975 to June 1975 and from November 1975 to February 1977. After finding that there is wilful default for this period, the Rent Controller ordered eviction. The petitioner herein preferred R.C.A.No.103 of 1984. The Appellate Authority found that there is wilful default for the period from June 1972 to November 1972 and from November 1975 to February 1977. On this ground, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. It is as against this order, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 6. The petitioner herein preferred R.C.A.No.103 of 1984. The Appellate Authority found that there is wilful default for the period from June 1972 to November 1972 and from November 1975 to February 1977. On this ground, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. It is as against this order, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 6. As far as the period June 1972 to November 1972 is concerned, the records clearly prove that the rents for this period have been paid already. As regards rent from November 1975 to February 1977, there is a clear statement in the counter filed in H.R.C.O.P. No.307 of 1977 and that clearly makes out that there is an excess payment of Rs.201.15 by the petitioner herein, and as such there is no wilful default as alleged by the respondent herein. This statement filed by the petitioner in H.R.C.O.P.No.307 of 1977 is fortified by the document Exhibit B-9 which shows that a sum of Rs.87/- was deposited on 29-1-1976 to the credit of C.M.A.No. 248 of 1973. Exhibit B-10 shows that a sum of Rs.91.75 was deposited on 11-11-1976 to the credit of C.M.A.No.249 of 1973. Under Exhibit B-13, municipal tax of Rs.198.25 was paid for 1972-73 and 1973-74 under receipt No.C.D.39700 dated 25-3-1976. Under Exhibit B-14 Municipal tax of Rs.99/- was paid for 1974-75 under receipt No.C.D.80248 dated. 29-11-1976. Exhibit B-11 evidences the filing of the suit S.C.No.221 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Trichy to get back a sum of Rs.230/- being the tax paid by the petitioner herein. Under Exhibit B-12, Money order was sent by the tenant as advance rent on 31-5-1977 of a sum of Rs.58/-and received by the respondent herein. 7. The facts narrated above clearly establish the vindictive attitude adopted by the landlord towards the tenant as and from 1970 onwards. All his attempts to hoodwink the petitioner by setting up his brother-in-law Pancha-natham as a tenant under him while the petitioner was away at Ceylon on a pilgrimage, proved futile. Ultimately the petitioner was declared as the direct tenant under the respondent herein in O.S.No.1985 of 1973 and that was confirmed by the Sub-Court, Tiruchi-rapalli in A.S.No.294 of 1976 as early as on 27-12-1976. The respondent has prayed in his Rent Control application No.115 of 1971 to get the petitioner herein evicted and that petition was dismissed as early as on 16-8-1973. The respondent has prayed in his Rent Control application No.115 of 1971 to get the petitioner herein evicted and that petition was dismissed as early as on 16-8-1973. Even prior to that, the anxiety of the petitioner to send the rent by money order is evidenced by Exhibits B-1 to B-5. Subsequently Exhibit B-27, series, which are money order coupons, evidence the anxiety of the petitioner to send the rents to the landlord. In spite of these circumstances, the landlord was bent upon filing suit after suit and also Rent Control Applications in order to evict the petitioner somehow or other. The respondent clutched at every opportunity in order to damage the petitioner and ultimately came with the present R.C.O.P.No.307 of 1977 after having failed in his previous attempts in various proceedings alleging default from 1970 to 1977. The courts below no doubt found that the deposit in the savings bank account and the deposit in the court is not regular, but they were once in two months or three months. Exhibit A-10 is the ledger pertaining to deposit of rents maintained in the Court in R.C.O.P.No.106 of 1971. The counter statement filed by the petitioner amply establishes the particulars of payment and adjustments. The document Exhibit B-22 clearly refers to the payment of property tax by the petitioner and the adjustment of the same towards the rent, and it is clear that the respondent who was the appellant in the proceedings is aware of such payment of property tax and the adjustment of the same towards the rent. It is surprising as to how the respondent ignores all these facts and comes forward with the present eviction petition as if some default has happened in the payment of rent. 8. The attempts made by the petitioner for paying the rent and also protecting’ his interest are evidenced by the various documents referred to above and they clearly establish that the petitioner was anxious to pay the rents and he has taken all necessary steps to protect his interest and that of the landlord who is the respondent herein. On the other hand it is patent that the respondent is trying his best to find out some means by which he could victimise the petitioner herein on one ground or other so that he can evict him from the shop under his occupation. 9. On the other hand it is patent that the respondent is trying his best to find out some means by which he could victimise the petitioner herein on one ground or other so that he can evict him from the shop under his occupation. 9. In G.Rangaraju v. Parthasarathy G.Rangaraju v. Parthasarathy (1964)1 MLJ.12. Venkatadri, J. has observed that a mere default in payment of rent for a few days will not amount to wilful default and to hold that a tenant is wilful in payment of arrears of rent, it must be proved beyond doubt that he had exhibited supine indifference and callousness. On the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioner herein had exhibited supine indifference and callousness in the payment of rent to the landlord. 10. In Khivraj v. Maniklal Khivraj v. Maniklal I.L.R. (1966)1 Mad.431 = A.I.R.1966 Mad.67 Ramamurthi, J. after observing an earlier decision of Rajagopala Aiyangar, J. held that wilful default was a state of mind or intention which must be inferred from the totality of circumstances and that mere default by itself would not amount to wilful default. In this connection, the learned Judge has observed as follows: “Keeping in mind the main object of the enactment, namely, prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants, the principle that emerges from the several decisions is that for default to be regarded as wilful default, the conduct of the tenant should be such as to lead to the inference that his omission was a conscious violation of his obligation to pay the rent or reckless indifference. If the default was due to accident or inadvertance or erroneous or false sense of security based upon the conduct of the landlord himself, the default cannot be said to be willful default. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rule applicable to all cases. But the basic and essential distinction between mere default and wilful default should be borne in mind and the totality and cumulative effect to all the circumstances should be taken into account and not any particular feature of the case in isolation. In certain cases, the prior conduct of the tenant consisting of chronic defaults taken along with a totally false and reckless plea of discharge or any other wholly untenable plea. may amount to wilful default. In certain cases, the prior conduct of the tenant consisting of chronic defaults taken along with a totally false and reckless plea of discharge or any other wholly untenable plea. may amount to wilful default. But at the same time, certain pleas raised by the tenant, but negatived by the court on assessment of the evidence adduced by the landlord and the tenant may constitute proof of bona fides on the part of the tenant as to rule out any theory of wilful default.” 11. In the same line of thinking is the judgment of Ramaprasada Rao, C.J. in Rasappa v. Jumnadoss Rasappa v. Jumnadoss (1979)1 MLJ. 317 wherein the learned Chief Justice has held that the default as a ground for eviction should be such that it should be so conspicuous to a reasonable person that the tenant's attitude was nothing but supine indifference and purposeful evasiveness resulting in his recalcitrance. 12. Thus, it is clear that the facts and circumstances of each case have to be taken note of before coming to the conclusion that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent. In this background, when we see the decision rendered by Ratnam, J.in Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swarnambal. Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swarnambal. (1984)2 MLJ.6 = 97 L.W.182. I do not think that there is any conflict between the principles enunciated in the other decisions cited by me supra and the principles laid down by Ratnam, J. in the above said decision. In this decision, the learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the tenant without any reference to the landlord has paid and adjusted the property tax towards the payment of tent. As I have observed already, the decision in C.M.A.Nos.248 and 249 of 1973 amply establishes that the landlord is aware of the adjustment of the property tax paid by the tenant towards the rent payable by him. Thus, on facts, the decision of Ratnam, J. in Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swarnambal (1984)2 MLJ.6 = 97 L.W.182 can be distinguished. As I have observed already, the decision in C.M.A.Nos.248 and 249 of 1973 amply establishes that the landlord is aware of the adjustment of the property tax paid by the tenant towards the rent payable by him. Thus, on facts, the decision of Ratnam, J. in Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swarnambal (1984)2 MLJ.6 = 97 L.W.182 can be distinguished. It is clear from the facts of this case that tenant has taken all possible steps to pay the rents, and even if it is construed that there is wrong adjustment of the property tax towards the payment of rent and that the deposits into court and in savings bank were once in two or three months on certain occasions, that may be a default, but cannot at any stretch of imagination be a wilful default on the facts and circumstances of this case. The systematic harassment by the landlord of the tenant in suits and eviction petitions as noticed above clearly establishes the oblique motive of the landlord to get the tenant evicted somehow or the other. Both the courts below have completely failed to appreciate the above said documents referred to by me while deciding as to whether the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent or not. Every default is not a wilful default. As Observed in the above said decisions cited by me, each cash depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The Courts below failed to refer to the relevant documents stated by me supra and thus erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed wilful default in the payment of rent. For the foregoing reasons I hold that there is no wilful default in payment of rents and hence the civil revision petition is allowed and the orders of eviction passed by the authorities below are set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.