Judgment : Both these revision petitions are filed by the tenant. 2. C.R.P.No.1827 of 1997 arises from R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1994, which is an application for eviction filed by the landlord. The landlord filed an application for the eviction on the ground that the tenant has committed wilful default in paying the rent and also that the building is required for his own occupation. The material averments are that the landlord purchased the scheduled premises from M/s.Ilankumaran Financiers for valid consideration. The petitioner herein was a tenant of the building from the financier and agreed to pay Rs.400 per month as rent. After his purchase, the fact was informed to the petitioner and from May, 1990, by mutual consent, the rent was enhanced to Rs.500. It is further stated that the rent upto October, 1990 was paid and from December, 1990, he is in arrears. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.604 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Namakkal to restrain the landlord from interfering with his possession and from forcibly evicting him. On 11. 1993, the landlord issued a notice informing the tenant about the default, for that the tenant sent a reply on 20.11.1993 refusing to vacate the premises. He also denied of having committed default in payment of rent. .3. The landlord further alleged that he requires the building for his own occupation for doing his banking business. The petitioner herein filed a counter. He admitted that the first respondent herein is the landlord and also the rate of rent. According to him, the landlord was always pestering him of forcible eviction and therefore, he was compelled to file O.S.No.604 of 1993 to restrain the landlord from interfering with his possession or from evicting him forcibly. He has also obtained ad-interim injunction in I.A.No.872 of 1993, which is still in force. He further stated that he has sent an amount of Rs.1,000 towards rent and the same was refused to be accepted by the landlord. According to him, there is no default and he is not liable to be evicted on that ground. Regarding the claim for own occupation, the contention was that the landlord is in possession of two rooms on the upstairs portion of the building of the landlord and the landlord has no intention to start the financing business and he prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. Regarding the claim for own occupation, the contention was that the landlord is in possession of two rooms on the upstairs portion of the building of the landlord and the landlord has no intention to start the financing business and he prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. The Rent Controller took oral and documentary evidence on the above pleadings. Exs.A-1 and A2 are marked on the side of the landlord and Ex.B-1 was marked on the side of the revision petitioner. The oral evidence consists of P.W.1 and D.W.1 -landlord and tenant respectively. After evaluating the entire evidence, the Rent Controller held that the landlord is not entitled to get possession of the building on the ground that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent. Regarding the claim of own occupation, no finding was entered. The Rent Controller was of the view that it is only because of the conduct of the landlord, the tenant could not pay the rent and the entire arrears have also been deposited during trial. The Rent Controller was of the view that even though there was some default, the same cannot be treated as wilful and the tenant had no intention not to pay the rent to the landlord. The Rent Controller also took notice of an application filed by the tenant in O.S.No.604 of 1993 where he is not permitted to pay the rent in that case. 5. The Rent Controller held that by filing an application before the civil court, the tenant has expressed his willingness to pay the rent to the landlord and only because of the objection raised by the landlord, the rent could not be paid. The application was, therefore, dismissed. 6. The landlord filed R.C.A.No.4 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Namakkal. The appellate authority reconsidered the entire evidence and held that the tenant has committed default and he is liable to be evicted. The appellate authority also took note of the fact that the Rent Controller has not entered a finding on the claim of the landlord for his own occupation. But at the same time, the appellate authority also refused to give a finding on that question. Eviction was ordered on the ground of wilful default. 7. C.R.P.No.1828 of 1996 is filed by the same tenant, which arose from R.C.O.P.No.6 of 1994. But at the same time, the appellate authority also refused to give a finding on that question. Eviction was ordered on the ground of wilful default. 7. C.R.P.No.1828 of 1996 is filed by the same tenant, which arose from R.C.O.P.No.6 of 1994. That is an application filed by the tenant under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking permission to deposit the amount in court. The Rent Controller held that sufficient cause has been made out for depositing the amount in court and the application was allowed. The appellate authority, on appeal by the landlord, reversed that finding holding that the pre-conditions for making an application under Sec.8(5) of the said Act had not been complied with and consequently, the application itself is not maintainable R.C.A.No.3 of 1995 filed by the landlord is allowed, which is challenged in this revision. .8. Heard both sides. R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1994 was filed on 2. 1994. On 27. 1994, a counter statement was filed. In the eviction petition, the landlord has alleged that till October, 1990, the rent was paid and the tenant is in arrears from November, 1990. In the counter statement filed by the tenant, he denied having committed any default and stated that on the date of petition, there are not rental arrears. Before the institution of the proceedings, the landlord also issued a notice on 11. 1993, and the same was subsequent to the filing of the suit O.S.No.604 of 1993. A reply was sent on 20.11.1993 alleging that there are no rental arrears. The tenant has also examined himself as R.W.1. He also asserted that on the date of petition, there are no arrears and after the institution of the proceedings, he has sent Rs.1,000 towards rent by money order and the same was refused to be accepted by the landlord. If this was the only evidence, the finding of the appellate authority cannot be said as correct. But, there is evidence in this case, by admission of the tenant himself that at least from May, 1993, no rent was paid. After the evidence in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1994 was taken, and when the case was posted for argument, the tenant filed an application I.A.No.19 of 1995 seeking permission to deposit the rent in court. He deposited the amount of Rs.9,000 towards the rent for 18 months. After the evidence in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1994 was taken, and when the case was posted for argument, the tenant filed an application I.A.No.19 of 1995 seeking permission to deposit the rent in court. He deposited the amount of Rs.9,000 towards the rent for 18 months. Thereafter, he also filed an application I.A.No.22 of 1995 stating that the rent already deposited is not sufficient and some more amount will have to be deposited i.e., for the period. May, June and July, 1994. That application was also allowed and the amount was deposited. 9. It is true that by the time the argument was heard in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1994, the entire rent was in court. Whether that deposit is sufficient to hold that the tenant has committed default is the question to be considered. It is for the said purpose, I extracted his contentions in the reply, counter statement and also his evidence as R.W.1. His assertion is that no amount is due to the landlord towards rental arrears. On his own admission, the same is found to be false and he himself has filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking permission to deposit the amount in court. At least from May, 1994, he committed default in payment of rent is proved in this case. 10. Even though the landlord claimed that he is in arrears from November 1990, the same is not proved. But, that by itself, will not show that the tenant has discharged his liability to pay the rent for the entire period. While making the deposit subsequently, no reason is stated as to why the rent could not be paid earlier and why he took a contention that the entire amount was paid. He only sought permission of the court to deposit the rent without offering any explanation. 11. It is well-settled that when false contention is taken out, that will be a ground to hold that the default was intentionally made and such a conduct will be termed as wilful. .12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the Civil Suit O.S.No.604 of 1993, he moved an application seeking permission to deposit the amount in court. Only because the landlord objected to the same, he could not deposit the amount in court. It is not the case of the petitioner that the landlord refused to accept the same as and when tendered. Only because the landlord objected to the same, he could not deposit the amount in court. It is not the case of the petitioner that the landlord refused to accept the same as and when tendered. After the misunderstanding arose, no attempt was made by the tenant to pay the rent to the landlord directly. There was no offer to the landlord to accept the rent. After filing the suit, he moved the court seeking permission to deposit the rent. That is only a civil suit and such a deposit could not be made and the suit also did not relate to the rentals arrears. The court also cannot give such a permission. Under those circumstances, the landlord was justified in objecting to the permission sought for. Even after the objection was raised, the tenant did not think of offering the rent to the landlord. He also did not issue notice to the landlord asking him to name any bank in which the deposit could be made. It is long thereafter, he deposed before the court that there are not rental arrears, knowing fully well that what is contended was false. 13. The conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority that the default can only be termed as wilful cannot be said as illegal or improper. The finding of the appellate authority that the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground that he has committed default is confirmed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he has deposited the entire rent before the disposal of the eviction proceedings, he should not be termed as a wilful defaulter. Learned counsel also argued that no notice was issued by the landlord under the proviso to Sec.10(1) of the said Act and therefore, he cannot be termed as a defaulter. 15. It is true that two months’ notice is not issued. A notice informing default was issued and the deposit was also made. Under the circumstances, the contention that he is not a wilful defaulter is the argument of the counsel. .16. The submission of the learned counsel could not be accepted in view of the decision in the case of M.Bhaskar v. J.Venkatrama Naidu M.Bhaskar v. J.Venkatrama Naidu M.Bhaskar v. J.Venkatrama Naidu , (1996)6 S.C.C. 228 which arose under the Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, which are similarly worded to that of our Act. .16. The submission of the learned counsel could not be accepted in view of the decision in the case of M.Bhaskar v. J.Venkatrama Naidu M.Bhaskar v. J.Venkatrama Naidu M.Bhaskar v. J.Venkatrama Naidu , (1996)6 S.C.C. 228 which arose under the Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, which are similarly worded to that of our Act. In that case also, eviction was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent and the contention taken was that since the landlord was away, he could not pay the rent and therefore, he is justified in not paying the rent in time. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court by holding thus: .“Though parties are related, nonetheless when the appellant is staying in the premises as tenant, he has got an obligation to pay the rent regularly. If he does not do so, he commits wilful default. If he finds that the landlord is evading the payment of rent, procedure has been prescribed under Sec.8 of the Act to issue notice the landlord to name the bank and if he does not name the bank, the tenant has to file an application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appellant did not avail of that remedy. The omission to avail of the procedure under Sec.11 does not entitle the landlord to seek eviction for wilful default.” 17. In the case of N.S.M.Ahmad Jamalia Beevi v. D.N.Shah N.S.M.Ahmad Jamalia Beevi v. D.N.Shah N.S.M.Ahmad Jamalia Beevi v. D.N.Shah , (1997)6 S.C.C. 597 which is a case arising under our Act itself, the tenant there did not pay the rent inspite of orders of this Court. But ultimately, in revision, under proceedings of the Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent) Control Act, this Court extended the time for making deposit. The same was challenged before the Supreme Court. Considering the same, the Supreme Court held thus: “We are unable to comprehend as to what were the relevant considerations which led the High Court to grant further time to the tenant. The tenant had taken two pleas: (i) that on account of the marriage of his daughter he could not make arrangement to pay the rent and (ii) that after July, 1992 the sub-tenant had directly paid rent to the appellant. Both these pleas are of no effect. The tenant had taken two pleas: (i) that on account of the marriage of his daughter he could not make arrangement to pay the rent and (ii) that after July, 1992 the sub-tenant had directly paid rent to the appellant. Both these pleas are of no effect. That the tenant could not arrange finances on account of his daughters marriage cannot be a ground to deny the landlord her due rent when the tenant himself had been collecting the rent from the sub-tenants and in case the sub-tenants had themselves defaulted payment of rent to the respondent he could well have proceeded against them under the Act. Equitable considerations have no place in a case like the present one and that too in the face of the express provision of law. While the Act protects the tenant against eviction and is a departure from the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it is the bounden duty of the tenant to pay rent to the landlord regularly and not to commit default. No sufficient cause was shown by the respondent as to why he failed to pay or to deposit the rent as ordered. Even rent prior to July, 1992 was not paid. The High Court was certainly in error in granting time to the tenant to deposit the rent. It did not exercise its jurisdiction properly as envisaged under Sec.25 of the Act.” 18. Raman, J. in the case of Vasantha Leela v. N.Vadivelu Chettiar Vasantha Leela v. N.Vadivelu Chettiar Vasantha Leela v. N.Vadivelu Chettiar , (1998)3 C.T.C. 467 held that where there is a misunderstanding or litigation pending between the landlord and tenant, it is the duty of the tenant to be more vigilant in depositing the rent in court in time, and if he fails to dose, it will amount to wilful default. 19. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in C.R.P.No.1827 of 1997 and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 20. Coming to the other revision petition C.R.P.No.1828 of 1997, I do not think that the revision petitioner has complied with the statutory conditions before seeking permission of court to deposit the amount. The allegation of the petitioner is that he has sent a money order for Rs.1,000 and the same was refused to be accepted by the landlord. Immediately, he rushed to the court and filed R.C.O.P.No.6 of 1994. The allegation of the petitioner is that he has sent a money order for Rs.1,000 and the same was refused to be accepted by the landlord. Immediately, he rushed to the court and filed R.C.O.P.No.6 of 1994. According to me, the procedure adopted by the petitioner is not correct. 21. Under Sec.8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), there is an obligation on the part of the landlord to issue the receipt for the amount paid by the tenant towards rent or advance. In case the landlord refuses to accept it, the tenant is directed to specify the name of the bank in which the rent could be deposited to the credit of the petitioner. The landlord also must given ten days’ notice for the said purpose. If the landlord specifies the bank in which the deposit is to be made, there is an obligation on the part of the tenant to deposit the amount in that bank and continue to deposit till he gets further instructions from the landlord. If the landlord does not specify the bank inspite of the request, the tenant is bound to send the amount by money order after deducting the money order commission. After complying with these conditions, if the landlord again refuses to accept the rent, the tenant is entitled to file an application before the Rent Controller seeking permission of court that he may be allowed to deposit the rent, which are then in arrears and continue to deposit in respect of the building. 22. Itis well settled, that if these statutory conditions are not complied with, the tenant is not entitled to deposit the amount in court. 23. Inthe case of Jagat Prasad v. District Judge, Kanpur and others Jagat Prasad v. District Judge, Kanpur and others Jagat Prasad v. District Judge, Kanpur and others , (1995)1 S.C.C. (Supp.) 318 their Lordships considered the question, which arose under the U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. An argument was taken before the Supreme Court that the deposit have been made in court, which is termed as bona fide would enure to the benefit of the rent control proceedings also. In that case, the deposit was made in the civil court. An argument was taken before the Supreme Court that the deposit have been made in court, which is termed as bona fide would enure to the benefit of the rent control proceedings also. In that case, the deposit was made in the civil court. The Supreme Court held as follows: “Nevertheless, the defence of the appellant that he had deposited bona fide the rent in the civil proceeding that would enure to the benefit of the rent control proceedings is unacceptable to us. Law prescribes the procedure as to the deposit under U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Such a procedure if complied with alone will be a valid defence to a petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Therefore, even accepting the defence the ultimate order of eviction passed against the tenant will have to be upheld.” 24. In the case of Rameswarlal Chaudhury v. Ram Niranjan Mour , (1995)3 S.C.C. (Supp.) 44 the deposit was made in the Rent Control Court itself, but without complying with provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. It was held thus: “In this case in which the appellant-tenant did not tender the rent to the landlord. Without resorting to such tender he has deposited the rent into the court. That is not in compliance with Sec.5(4) of the Assam urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The High Court is correct in its conclusion. Civil Appeal is dismissed.” 25. In the case of Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal , (1996)I S.C.C. 243 the Supreme Court considered this question under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. Sec.19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act is similar to Sec.8 of our Act. Considering the scope of Sec.19-A of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, their Lordships considered this question in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the judgment wherein it was held thus: “Shri Sachar does not dispute that the conditions prescribed in clause (c) of Sub-sec.(3) of 19-A for the purpose of making the deposit in court are not fulfilled in the present case. The submission of Shir Sachar, however, is that since the appellant had deposition in court the rent for the months of May, 1982 to October, 1982 on 210. The submission of Shir Sachar, however, is that since the appellant had deposition in court the rent for the months of May, 1982 to October, 1982 on 210. 1982, before the said rent for six months fell due, he cannot be held to be a defaulter in payment of rent for six months and a decree for eviction under Sec.13(1)(a) could not be passed. Shri Sachar has, in this connection, placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Duli Chand v. Maman Chand , (1980)1 S.C.C. 246 and Sheo Narain We have carefully perused the said judgments. Both these judgments relate to the proviso to Sec.13 (2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which affords protection against eviction of the tenant if on the first hearing on the application for ejectment after due service he pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller. In both these cases, the tenant had deposited the amount of rent in the court in which the ejectment proceedings were pending prior to the first hearing of the application and on the first hearing the landlord was made aware of the deposit. This Court has held that the even though there was no provision in the Act for deposit of the rent in court the said deposit could be treated as compliance with the requirements of the proviso to Sec.13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and the tenant was entitled to avail of the benefit of the said proviso. In the present case, the appellant is seeking to avail of the benefit of the legal fiction under Sec.19-A(4) of the Act. It is settled law that a legal fiction is to be limited to the purpose for which it is created and should not be extended beyond the legitimate field. (See Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar , (1955)2 S.C.R. 603 : A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 661: (1955)6 S.T.C. 446(S.C.R. at 646). The appellant can avail of the benefit of Sec.19-A(4) if the deposit of Rs.3,600 made by him in the Court of Munsif (South), Udaipur on 210. Ltd. v. State of Bihar Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar , (1955)2 S.C.R. 603 : A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 661: (1955)6 S.T.C. 446(S.C.R. at 646). The appellant can avail of the benefit of Sec.19-A(4) if the deposit of Rs.3,600 made by him in the Court of Munsif (South), Udaipur on 210. 1982, by way of rent for the months of May, 1982 to October, 1982, can be treated as a payment under Sec.19-A(3)(c) so as to enable the appellant to say that he was not in default in payment of rent. Under Sec.19-A(3)(c) the tenant can deposit the rent in the court only if the conditions laid down in the said provision are satisfied, in the present case. The deposit which was made by the respondent in court on 210. 1982 cannot, therefore, be regarded as a deposit made in accordance with clause (c) of Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.19-A and the appellant cannot avail of the protection of Sub-sec.(4) of Sec.19-A and he must be held to have committed default in payment of rent for the months of May, 1982 to October, 1982. This means that the decree for eviction has been rightly passed against the appellant on account of default in payment of rent for the period of six months.” 26. I have also followed the above decision in the case of Ramalingam v. B.Thangavelu Ramalingam v. B.Thangavelu Ramalingam v. B.Thangavelu , (1997)2 L.W. 35 . 27. When the tenant invokes the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, he has to pay the rent as and when it becomes due. Payment in court is considered as payment to the landlord directly and the tenant is absolved or discharged of his obligation, thereafter, Inspite of an application filed in 1994, the tenant did not think of depositing any amount in that case; he deposited the amount only in the eviction proceedings when the case is posted for argument. He himself admitted that he is now depositing the amount for 18 months and thereafter, deposited the amount for three months by filing application. 28. From the admission of the tenant himself, it is clear that he has not complied with the conditions under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act nor he has tendered rent to the landlord. 28. From the admission of the tenant himself, it is clear that he has not complied with the conditions under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act nor he has tendered rent to the landlord. He volunteered to deposit the amount in court without satisfying the pre-conditions and again failed to deposit the amount in court. Mere refusal of the landlord to receive the rent cannot justify the action of the tenant to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. The tenant will have to satisfy the conscience of this Court that the refusal of the landlord was improper. In this case, an amount of Rs.1,0000 was sent by money order. On that date, even according to the admission of the tenant himself, at least six months rent was due. The landlord was, therefore, justified in refusing the money order. He has also not sought the instructions of the landlord to deposit the amount in bank. In such circumstances, the finding of the appellate authority that the application under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not maintainable is only to be confirmed. 29. In the result, C.R.P.No.1828 of 1997 is also dismissed. No costs.