Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the tenant under the respondent. The respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 10 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Controller, Karaikkal to evict the petitioner on the ground of wilful default stating that the petitioner was in arrears from July, 1989. This was opposed by the petitioner by filing counter. However, the Rent Controller had allowed the R.C.O.P. by his order dated 2.2.1995. The petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1996 which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal by his order dated 21.10.1996. As against this the present revision has been filed. 2. Mr. Yamunan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the evidence of P.W. 1 was recorded the case was adjourned twice for the respondents evidence. But since the counsel was not free, third time also adjournment was sought for. The Rent Controller refused to grant adjournment and the Rent Controller proceeded to decide the matter on merits on the basis of the averments in the counter and certain answers given by the petitioner before the Court. Since the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to put forth his case the orders of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 3. On the contrary, Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel for the respondent contended that admittedly the petitioner was in arrears which was clear from the lump sum payment made by the petitioner. Further, when the petitioner was enquired by the Rent Controller, he has admitted there was arrears and the Rent Controller has proceeded on the basis of the admission. In spite of the fact that the matter has been adjourned twice the petitioner has failed to get into the box to give evidence or to examine any one on his behalf and as such the Rent Controller is perfectly right in proceeding with the case on merits. 4. I have carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. The Rent Controller has observed in his order as follows: “On three hearings this Court posted for respondents side evidence. The respondent was present and the respondents counsel has not appeared before this Court. 4. I have carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. The Rent Controller has observed in his order as follows: “On three hearings this Court posted for respondents side evidence. The respondent was present and the respondents counsel has not appeared before this Court. Therefore, this Court closed the respondents side.” Having made the above observation, the Rent Controller proceeded to decide the matter on merits after hearing the arguments of respondents counsel and after perusing the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner herein. The Rent Controller has taken into consideration the statement made by the petitioner in his counter affidavit that he did not pay the rents from July, 1994 to September, 1994 as the respondent did not issue the receipts for the payment of rent, and hence, failure to pay the rent cannot be considered to be a default, much less wilful default. From this statement it is clear that the petitioner-tenant had refused to pay rent for the period from July, 1994 to September, 1994 since the landlord refused to pass on a receipt for the payment of the rent. If really the failure to pay the rent by the petitioner is only due to the conduct of the respondent by refusing to issue the receipt for payment of rent, then the question for consideration is, whether it will amount to wilful default. Merely on the basis of this statement the Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the tenant has committed wilful default and ordered eviction. 5. On appeal also the Appellate Authority has proceeded on the basis that from the order dated 16.2.1996 in I. No. 70 of 1995, it could be culled out that the petitioner was in arrears because the order reads as follows: “Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted to Court question, that he is in admitted arrears of rent of only Rs. 4,800/-.” Calculating the amount of arrears, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent from January, 1994 to December, 1995 and since the arrears have been admitted, there is no need to interfere with the order of eviction. 4,800/-.” Calculating the amount of arrears, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent from January, 1994 to December, 1995 and since the arrears have been admitted, there is no need to interfere with the order of eviction. Equally the appellate authority proceeded further to consider the evidence of P.W. 1 and the evidence available on record gurther observed that since the tenant has admitted the arrears there is no need to call for any finding from the trial court after examination of the tenant. On that basis the order of eviction was confirmed. 6. I am unable to agree with the view taken by the authorities below. First of all the tenant/petitioner was present in Court and his counsel was not present. Perhaps the matter had been adjourned at the instance of the counsel. If any adjournment is sought for at the instance of the counsel, naturally the Court has to oblige. If the counsel persistently absents himself, without sufficient cause, the Court is entitled to proceed on merits. But, however, when the petitioner was present in Court at least the Court should have examined him and recorded his testimony to what it is worth. Without doing so, the Court has proceeded only on the basis of the averment made in the counter and some observation made in the order in I.A. 7. The rules framed under Sec. 33 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 known as Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1980 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in disposing of the applications. Rule 13(2) is as follows: “The Controller or the authorised officer or an officer authorised by him, as the case may be, shall give to the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their case. He shall also record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and of the witnesses, if any, examined on either side, and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence which may be produced by the parties, pass orders on the application.” From the above extracted rule it is clear that the Rent Controller has to record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and of the witnesses, if any, examined on either side. There is no dispute that the procedure in the Rent Control proceedings is only summary in nature, but however, when the tenant was present, the Court cannot proceed ex parte without asking him as to whether he is willing to get into the box to depose. If the Court had asked about his willingness and if the tenant has refused to get into the box, then the Court has to proceed with the available materials on record and then decide the question. Without ascertaining the willingness of the tenant and also without ascertaining the convenience of the counsel the Rent Controller ought not to have proceeded with the trial. The admissions would have been taken into account after proper opportunity has been given to the tenant to put forth his case especially when he was represented by the counsel. 8. Of Course, Mr. R. Gandhi, learned senior counsel has referred to two judgments in Natarajan, C v. Anandammal (1989) 1 L.W. 29 and Alagumani v. K. Shanmugham and 2 others (1994-2-L.W. 391) and contended that even during the pendency of the proceedings the tenant has not paid the rents regularly and he has deposited the amount in Court and the landlord was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 9,000/- at the time of disposal of the appeal and hence there cannot be any dispute that the tenant is in arrears of rent and the default is nothing but wilful one. When the landlord has been permitted to withdraw the amount from the Court deposit, it is clear that the tenant had deposited the amount in Court. When the rents have been deposited in Court during the pendency of the proceedings, how far the disputed arrears can be considered as wilful default, is to be considered. However, all these matters can be elaborately canvassed before the Rent Controller by giving the parties an opportunity to put forth their case. 9. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the orders of the Courts below cannot be sustained. Accordingly, C.R.P. is allowed and the R.C.O.P. No. 10 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Controller, Karaikkal is remanded for fresh disposal. The Rent Controller, Karaikkal is directed to dispose of the R.C.O.P. within two months from the date of receipt of the records as well as the order. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 16397/96 is dismissed.