Judgment : The landlord is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed the petition for eviction under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petition premises belongs to a private religious institution. The tenant is in occupation of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.450 payable according to the English calendar month. The tenant is running a printing press in the petition premises under the name and style of ‘Paramount Printers’. It was agreed between the parties that the rent should be paid on or before fifth day of every succeeding month. The tenant has paid an advance of Rs.1,000. The tenant paid the rent till the end of April, 1980. Subsequently the tenant paid the rent on 12. 1980. The tenant did not pay the rent for a period of seven months from May, 1980 to November, 1980, amounting to Rs.3,600. Therefore according to the landlord the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Act. 2. The case of the tenant is as under: According to the tenant the monthly rent for the petition premises is Rs.450, which is payable on or before 10th of every succeeding month and not on or before 5th of the succeeding month as alleged by the landlord. The tenant paid an advance of Rs.1,000 to the landlord. The tenant was regular in payment of rent. The tenant paid the rent upto December, 1977 regularly. The petition premises requires some major repairs. The landlord requested the tenant to vacate the petition premises so that he could carry out the repairs. Hence, the respondent vacated the petition premises in the first week of June, 1978 and shifted her press to a building at No.125 Chinnakadai Street, Madurai. The landlord agreed to carry out the repairs within six months and deliver possession of the premises to the tenant. But the landlord did not carry out any repair upto July, 1978. Hence the landlord requested the tenant to occupy the petition premises and made a request to her to carry out the repairs at her cost. The landlord agreed to repay the repair charges after making a resolution to that effect in the General Body meeting. But the landlord did not carry out any repair upto July, 1978. Hence the landlord requested the tenant to occupy the petition premises and made a request to her to carry out the repairs at her cost. The landlord agreed to repay the repair charges after making a resolution to that effect in the General Body meeting. Accordingly the respondent occupied the building in August, 1978 and she carried out the repairs at a cost of Rs.2,000. The tenant paid the rent for the month of August, 1978 in the month of September, 1978. The landlord credited that amount for the month of January, 1978. Though the tenant was not in possession of the building during that period but the tenant was paying the rent regularly. But the landlord credited the amounts for the period from February, 1978 to July, 1978, while during this period the tenant was not in occupation of the building. The landlord also did not pay the amount of Rs.2,000 spent by the tenant in spite of several demands. On 12. 1983 when the tenant paid the rent for the month of November, 1980 the tenant asked the landlord to repay the repairing charges to her. The tenant was also informed by the landlord that if the amounts spent by her was not returned within the stipulated time, that would be adjusted towards payment of rent. The landlord agreed to adjust the rent as suggested by the tenant towards the rent due to him. The landlord filed this petition in January, 1981. The tenant has paid the rent upto November, 1980. The respondent has to pay the rent of Rs.3,600 for a period of eight months from December, 1980 to July, 1981. The tenant deducted and adjusted the said sum of Rs.2,000 from and towards the amount due to the landlord and got the balance amount of Rs.1,600 on 8. 1981 to the landlord’s use. Hence, according to the tenant there is no wilful default in payment of rent. 3. The tenant also stated that the landlord has filed R.C.O.P. No.119 of 1981 and the same was transferred to the court of the District Munsif, Melur and it was renumbered as R.C.O.P. No.94 of 1987. Since the property has situate within the jurisdiction of Madurai town the District Munsif Court at Melur had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. 3. The tenant also stated that the landlord has filed R.C.O.P. No.119 of 1981 and the same was transferred to the court of the District Munsif, Melur and it was renumbered as R.C.O.P. No.94 of 1987. Since the property has situate within the jurisdiction of Madurai town the District Munsif Court at Melur had no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It was therefore prayed that the petition for eviction is liable to be dismissed. 4. The landlord filed seven documents and the tenant filed four documents. K.R. Kannan was examined as P.W. 1 and one Chandrakesan was examined as R.W.1. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller held that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent. On the question of jurisdiction it was held that the Rent Controller has got jurisdiction to entertain this petition and accordingly eviction was ordered. However, on appeal the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction. It is against that order the present revision has been preferred by the landlord. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ landlord as under: The Rent Control Appellate Authority erred in reversing the well considered order of the Rent Controller. The appellate authority was not correct in holding that the tenant did not commit wilful default in payment of rent. The landlord filed a suit for recovering the arrears of rent and the said suit was decreed and the same was confirmed in the appeal. Even after the decree was passed in the said suit, the tenant did not pay the arrears of rent. The landlord initiated execution proceedings to recover the decree amount. The tenant did not file any second appeal against the judgment and decree rendered by the first appellate court. There is no evidence on record to show that the tenant left the premises and was carrying on business at No.125, Chinnakadai Street, Madurai. There is also no evidence on record to show that the tenant spent a sum of Rs.2,000 for carrying out the repairs. The decisions relied upon by the appellate authority do not applicable to the facts of the case. There is no evidence on record to show that as to why the tenant did not pay the rent from November, 1981 to July, 1981. The decisions relied upon by the appellate authority do not applicable to the facts of the case. There is no evidence on record to show that as to why the tenant did not pay the rent from November, 1981 to July, 1981. The landlord clearly established that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. There is no agreement between the landlord and the tenant for carrying out the repairs by the tenant and repayment of repairing charges by the landlord to the tenant. It was therefore submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in dismissing the petition filed for eviction under Sec. 10(2)(1) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the tenant/ respondent submitted as under: The tenant was regular in payment of rent. The tenant is not liable to pay the rent for the petition period since the tenant was not in occupation of the petition premises during that period. The petition premises required major repairs. The landlord requested the tenant to vacate the petition premises so as to enable the landlord to carry out the repairs. Accordingly the tenant gave possession of the petition premises to the landlord for the period of six months. The landlord was not carrying on any business. Thereafter, the landlord requested the tenant to reoccupy the petition premises and also requested the tenant to repair the petition premises at her cost. The landlord also agreed to repay the repair charges. After the repairs were done at a cost of Rs.2,000 the landlord did not reimburse the same. The tenant adjusted this amount in the arrears of rent and paid the balance. Therefore there is no wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord. The fact that the landlord filed a suit to recover the arrears of rent would not go to show that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent as per the provisions of Sec.l0(2)(l) of the Act. For all these reasons, it was submitted that the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is in order and hence no interference is called for. 7. I have heard the rival submissions. 8. The fact remains that the landlord filed the petition for eviction under Sec.10(2)(l) of the Act. For all these reasons, it was submitted that the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is in order and hence no interference is called for. 7. I have heard the rival submissions. 8. The fact remains that the landlord filed the petition for eviction under Sec.10(2)(l) of the Act. According to the landlord, the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from May, 1980 to December, 1980, at the rate of Rs.450 per month amounting to Rs.3,600. According to the tenant at the request of the landlord she gave possession of the petition premises during June, 1980 to the landlord in order to enable him to carry out the repairs. Since the landlord expressed that they cannot effect repairs if the tenant is in occupation of the petition premises, the tenant shifted her printing press to a building at No.125, Chinnakadai Street. However, the landlord could not carry not the repairs during the stipulated period. They requested the tenant to reoccupy the petition premises and also requested the tenant to carry out the repairs at her own cost which they would reimburse later. Hence in August, 1978 the then President of the Shabs viz. Narayanasamy Iyer informed the tenant that there was some proposal to let out the petition mentioned property to some other person and requested the tenant to occupy the petition premises immediately. Accordingly in August, 1978 the tenant occupied the petition premises and he brought back all his printing equipments to the petition premises. According to the tenant she was not in occupation of the petition premises during the period from January, 1978 to August 1978. Therefore she did not pay the rent for the said period. The tenant paid the rent for the month of August, 1978 in September, 1978. But the landlord adjusted this rent for the month of January, 1978. According to the tenant, when questioned about this the landlord said that they would settle all these matters by a resolution in the General Body Meeting. According to the tenant she spent a sum of Rs.2,000 for repairing the premises. She adjusted the said amount out of Rs.3,600 and paid Rs.1,600 to the landlord. The landlord also filed a suit to recover the arrears of rent for the period of eight months from May, 1980 to December, 1980. According to the tenant she spent a sum of Rs.2,000 for repairing the premises. She adjusted the said amount out of Rs.3,600 and paid Rs.1,600 to the landlord. The landlord also filed a suit to recover the arrears of rent for the period of eight months from May, 1980 to December, 1980. The suit was decreed and in the appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court was confirmed. It was pointed out that there is no documentary evidence on the side of the tenant to show that she removed the machinery from the petition premises and occupied the premises at No. 125, Chinnakadai Street, Madurai during the month of January, 1978. According to the tenant one Narayanasamy Iyer, then President of the Association, informed her to reoccupy the petition premises. But the death extract (Ex. A-7) would go to show that the said Narayanasamy Iyer died on 25. 1978 itself. Therefore, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant was in possession of the petition premises during the period from 1978 to August, 1978. Therefore, according to the Rent Controller, the tenant was in arrears of rent from May, 1980 to July, 1981. Therefore, the landlord filed a suit O.S. No.1748 of 1981 to recover the arrears of rent and the suit was decreed. Thus the Rent Controller ultimately came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from May, 1980 to July, 1981. The Rent Control Appellate Authority did not consider properly the plea put forward by the tenant that she vacated the petition premises in order to enable the landlord to effect repairs to the petition premises. As already pointed out that there is no positive evidence on the side of the tenant to show that the tenant incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,000 towards repairing the petition premises. According to the tenant the landlord requested the tenant to repair the petition premises and the landlord also assured the tenant to reimburse the repair charges. This was denied by the landlord. Even assuming that the tenant shifted her printing machineries in the month of January, 1978 to Chinnakadai Street and again reoccupied the petition premises at the request of the landlord, there was no evidence on record to substantiate this version put forward by the tenant. This was denied by the landlord. Even assuming that the tenant shifted her printing machineries in the month of January, 1978 to Chinnakadai Street and again reoccupied the petition premises at the request of the landlord, there was no evidence on record to substantiate this version put forward by the tenant. The fact the tenant was paying the rent to the premises at Chinnakadai Street would not by itself go to show that the tenant shifted from the petition premises. Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are receipts produced by the tenant pertaining to the period January, 1979 to July, 1979. All these receipts are in one date, i.e. 16. 1975 and the person who issued such receipts was not examined. There is no evidence on record on the side of the tenant to show that she handed over the possession of the petition premises to the landlord in the month of January, 1978. Admittedly, the rent was not paid for the petition period. The reasons given by the tenant for non-payment of rent is neither acceptable nor proved with documentary evidence. Admittedly, the landlord filed a suit to recover the arrears of rent due from the tenant. If really the tenant was not in occupation of the petition premises for the said period, the civil court would not have passed the decree for recovery of arrears of rent. Thus, the facts on record would go to show that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. The first appellate court failed to appreciate the facts arising in this case in proper prespective. Accordingly, the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Control is restored. Accordingly the revision is allowed. No Costs. Time for eviction two months.