Judgment :- This civil revision petition is filed by the unsuccessful landlady in rent control proceedings. 2. Brief facts are the following: The petitioner herein purchased the suit premises from Ramasami Chettiar on 14.11.1979. Thereafter, since no rents were paid, a notice demanding rents for the period from November, 1979 to January, 1981 was sent by the petitioner respondent. In reply to this notice, the respondent has stated inter alia that what was let was only a site. The respondent has paid a sum of Rs.5,000 by way of advance to vendor of the petitioner, that a sum of Rs.1,400 has been paid towards property tax, the vendor has agreed to adjust the said amount from the rents payable by her. According to the respondent, there was no default in payment of rents. It may be mentioned that the notice was issued by the petitioner, by mistake, rents were demanded from respondent from 1.11.1978. While issuing a rejoinder to the reply sent by the respondent, the petitioner has corrected the period of demand as from November, 1979 to the date issue of rejoinder. The petitioner acknowledged the payment of Rs.5,000 towards advance the vendor. However, the petitioner denied the claim of payment and adjustment of property tax as claimed by the respondent. The petitioner also denied that what was let out was the site. After issuing a rejoinder, the petitioner filed H.R.C.No.555 of 1981, on the file court of Small Causes, Madras, on 24.1.1981. The petition for eviction was filed on grounds, namely, (1) wilful default in payment of rents; (2) acts of waste; and (3) letting. 3. The petition was resisted by the respondent mainly on the ground that the learned Controller has no jurisdiction to try the case as the lease was only of a site without superstructure, and the superstructure was put up by her. The respondent denied allegations regarding wilful default, acts of waste and sub-letting. 4. The learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of pleadings, evidence and arguments, held against the petitioner on all the three points. Consequently, he dismissed the petition for eviction. On appeal, it appears, the petitioner has confirmed the relief only with reference to wilful default in payment of rents. On the question of sub-letting and acts of waste, arguments were addressed before the Appellate Authority. Consequently, he dismissed the petition for eviction. On appeal, it appears, the petitioner has confirmed the relief only with reference to wilful default in payment of rents. On the question of sub-letting and acts of waste, arguments were addressed before the Appellate Authority. On the question of wilful default, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller therefore, dismissed the appeal. Hence the present civil revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.Raghavachari, elaborately argued the matter and contended that both the Authorities below have made much about the committed by the petitioner and his counsel in mentioning the period of default in paying rents and in claiming the rents from November, 1978 in the notice (Ex.P-1) without due regard to the rejoinder (Ex.p-3). He also submitted that there is no claim for adjustment of the advance amount of Rs.5,000 and the adjustment of the amount paid by property tax cannot be entertained as there was no prior permission by the petitioner vendor, to pay the property tax. He also submitted that the Authorities below went assuming that all the property tax paid by the respondent was with reference to the in question. In support of his contention that the tenant has no right to pay the property voluntarily, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Jagannatha Chettiar Swarnambal, (1984)2 M.L.J. 6 . 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mr.Jayabalan, also argued elaborately contending that in the light of the inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner in Ex.P and in the evidence, the Authorities below were right in holding that there was no default in the payment of rent. He placed reliance on Ex.P-1 notice demanding rent November, 1978 which relates to a period prior to the purchase of the premises petitioner. Neither the petitioner nor his vendor gave notice about the sale in favour petitioner calling upon the respondent to attorn the tenancy. Therefore, till the date of notice under Ex.P-1, it cannot be said that there was any default in payment of After the R.C.O.P. was filed, rents were paid on 17.6.1981 and under Ex.R-6 notice. shows the bona fides of the respondent. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. The learned Rent Controller, on facts, has that the respondent knew about the purchase of the building by the petitioner. shows the bona fides of the respondent. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. The learned Rent Controller, on facts, has that the respondent knew about the purchase of the building by the petitioner. Therefore, failure to pay rent after 1.11.1979 would amount to default. But, according to the Rent Controller, the default was not wilful for the reason that the petitioner while issuing notice under Ex.P-1, has not mentioned about either the advance paid by the respondent the payment of property tax. The reason given by the learned Rent Controller for that the default was not wilful in his own words is as follows: ".....In the absence of the requirements on the part of the petitioner to direct respondent to attorn her tenancy-which is covered by a written agreement to adjustment of Rs.5,000 as advance after the 1st respondent became a tenant under failure on the part of the petitioner to communicate the same to the 1st- respondent faulty claim made by the petitioner in Ex.P-1 would have resulted in the 1st respondent paying the rents to the petitioner to safeguard his rights even though he knew about sale. The 1st respondent also contends that she did not take steps to deposit the court as she entertained an idea that this Court has no jurisdiction. No notice was given ‘Ex.P-1 claiming arrears. The same was paid to the petitioner when the latter M.P.No.411/81 under Sec.11(4) of the Act. Therefore, the circumstances of this case clearly show that there is default on the part of the 1st respondent in payment of rents November, 1979 till she paid the amount in court. But the circumstances discussed will show that the same is not wilful. Accordingly, I decide this point in favour of respondent." The Appellate Authority has also taken the same view by stating as follows: "....In view of the prevaricative answers of P.W.I with regard to the agreement and the of the same, I am of opinion that unless the petitioner proves that the respondent purposely withheld payment or rent, her version cannot be given much credence. xx xx xx since the respondent has substantiated his version that he has paid the tax Corporation by producing Exs.R-l, R-2 and R-14, his version that he has paid a Rs.1,400 towards Corporation arrears cannot be brushed aside as untrustworthy acceptance. xx xx xx since the respondent has substantiated his version that he has paid the tax Corporation by producing Exs.R-l, R-2 and R-14, his version that he has paid a Rs.1,400 towards Corporation arrears cannot be brushed aside as untrustworthy acceptance. xx xx xx .....Therefore, I am of opinion that the observation of the learned Rent Controller respondent has only safeguarded his position by withholding the payment cannot be an erroneous one. In order to hold a default as a wilful default, it must be shown tenant is supinely indifferent and recalcitrant in his obligation to pay rent to the landlord the present case, there is no room to hold so. Further, soon after the receipt of notice under Sec.11(4), the respondent has paid the arrears to the petitioner. This conduct of the respondent would also disclose that there supine indifference on the part of the tenant to make payment of rent to the Therefore, I am of opinion that the respondent even though has committed default, default would not amount to wilful default, is well-founded, and, therefore, the request the appellant to hold that the respondent has committed wilful default in payment cannot complied with." The authorities having found on fact that the respondent knew about the purchase building by the petitioner and, therefore, ought to have paid rents to the petitioner period from November, 1979 onwards, wrongly took the view that there was no default merely on the ground that in Ex.P-1 notice, the petitioner has committed mistakes. The hard fact remains that the respondent did not care to pay the rents period in question and subsequent thereto as well. The arrears of rent were paid 17.6.1981. The respondent vehemently contended before the authorities below that provisions of the Rent Control Act will not apply as what was let out was only site. But contention was not accepted by both the authorities below. The authorities below note that there was nothing on record to show that Rs.1,406 was paid only towards tax concerning the premises in question. The exhibits marked, namely, Exs.R-1, R 14 series relate to the payments of tax to the Corporation not only to the premises question but also to the industry run by the respondent. Furthermore, as held by this in Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swar-nambal, (1984)2 M.L.J. 6 , the payment of tax voluntarily not enable the tenant to plead adjustment in the rents. Furthermore, as held by this in Jagannatha Chettiar v. Swar-nambal, (1984)2 M.L.J. 6 , the payment of tax voluntarily not enable the tenant to plead adjustment in the rents. Ratnam, J., in that case, has follows: ".....In the ordinary course of events, even if a demand notice for property tax or water had been received by the tenant it was the duty of the tenant to have brought it notice of the landlord and only thereafter the tenant should have acted in accordance the directions given by the landlord or as a prudent occupier of the property, if she driven to adopt that course, in this case, the evidence does not disclose that the informed the landlord about the receipt of the demand notice and that there was a by the landlord that the tenant should pay the property and water taxes and adjust same out of the rents, In the absence of any such direction or understanding, any payments made by the tenant would only be in the nature of a voluntary payment and would not any manner bind the landlord nor would it give rise to any right in the tenant for adjustment of those amounts against the rents payable. Considered in that light, property and the water taxes claimed to have been paid by the tenant in this case would partake the character of only voluntary payments. It may be that the tenant can recover those amounts in accordance with Sec.375 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act by other modes, but, that would not shield her from the consequences of non-payment rents for nearly a period of 11 months without any justification at all. Inasmuch as on facts and in the circumstances of this case, the payments stated to have been made by tenant have been held to be voluntary, those payments cannot be taken advantage of by tenant and cannot be pleaded as an answer to the prayer for an order of eviction on ground of wilful default." In the light of the above ratio laid down by this Court, the adjustment as pleaded by respondent cannot be countenanced. It is not the case of the respondent in the counter statement that she ever called upon the petitioner to adjust the rents from out of advance amount. It is not the case of the respondent in the counter statement that she ever called upon the petitioner to adjust the rents from out of advance amount. In the circumstances, the non-payment of rents cannot be considered mere default, but amounts to wilful default In this connection, Explanation to Sec.10(2) the Act can also be noted. As noticed earlier, the notice was issued on 29.10.1980. The were paid only on 17.6.1981. Explanation to Sec.10(2) of the Act states that if rents not paid within two months, the default can be considered as wilful. For all these reasons, am inclined to hold that the findings of the Authorities below are perverse and not based correct facts, and consequently they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed on the ground that the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents. The petition for eviction is ordered on that ground. No costs. Venkataswami, J.: Learned counsel for the respondent/tenant seeks six months’ time respondent to vacate the premises in question having regard to the fact that she is running factory. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. Accordingly, six months from today is given to the respondent for vacating the premises. Petition allowed.