Judgment :- 1. Tenant in R.C.O.P. 4 of 1994 on the file of Rent Controller, Uthagamandalam is the revision petitioner. 2. Landlord claimed eviction on the ground that tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and the said default is wilful. 3. Between same parties, there was earlier litigation as R.C.O.P. 129 of 1989, where also landlord claimed eviction on the ground that tenant committed default in payment of rent. In that petition, landlord claimed that tenant has not paid rent from 1.3.1983 to 31.8.1989 for a period of 78 months and an amount of Rs. 25, 350/- is due. In that case. Rent Controller as well as appellate authority found that the case of landlord that rent was not paid from 1.3.1983 is not true and default wasonlyfrom 1.3.1987 at the rateof Rs. 325/- per month. Since tenant has paid entire amount from 1.3.1987 Rent Controller found that tenant is not liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. The matter was also confirmed in appeal. 4. In the present application, landlord alleged that from 1.3.1987 till 31.12.1993 total rent payable is Rs. 26,650/-, out tenant has paid only Rs. 18,525 during the course of proceedings in R.C.O.P. 121 of 1989. According to landlord, even the said payment was made only in irregular intervals and a balance of Rs. 8.125/- is due as on 31.12.1993. Itwas alleged that the default committed is wilful and the tenant is liable to be evicted on that ground. 5. In the counter statement filed by respondent, he took a contention that the application itself is barred by res judicata . He also contended that in the earlier proceedings it was found that even though he was in default from 1.3.1987, since he has paid the entire amount, lie is not liable to be evicted. In the present claim, landlord is barred from contending that tenant is in default from 1.3.1987, which was subject matter of earlier litigation. He also said that amounts are paid as and when the matter was taken up in the earlier proceedings either monthly or in lumpsum and landlord never insisted for payment during rent control appeal and he was also paying rent as and when the matter was taken up. There is no wilful default and he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. There is no wilful default and he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. On the above pleadings Rent Controller took oral and documentary evidence and as per order dated 12.7.1995 allowed the petition. Landlords son alone got examined as PW1 through whom Exs. A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of tenant no documentary or oral evidence was let in. 7. Rent Controller found thatfrom 1.3 1987 till 31.12.1993 a sum of Rs. 26.650/- is payable out of which tenant has only paid Rs. 18,525/- and even those payments were made at irregular intervals. Even during the pendency of proceedings, tenant has only paid an amount of Rs. 4,550/- and still a balance of Rs. 3675/- is due towards rent arrears. When Rent Controller held that when litigations are pending between parties, tenant should have been little more careful in paying rent and keeping arrears for long time shows his intention not to pay rent in time. He was found to be wilful defaulter and consequently liable to be evicted. 8. When the matter was taken in appeal in R.C.A. 33 of 1995 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, it also did not find any reason to deviate from the reasonings of the Rent Controller. Before Appellate Authority, one more payment was also brought to his knowledge that an amount of Rs. 1,300/- was also paid. Still Appellate Authority held even that payment, will not help petitioner to hold that he is not defaulter. Appellate Authority also held that he is a wilful defaulter by dismissing the appeal. 9. The said concurrent findings of the authorities below are assailed in this revision petition under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 10. I heard the counsel on both sides. As was contended before authorities below, learned counsel for petitioner herein also contended that landlord is not entitled to contend that the rents from 1.3.1987 are due. Said claim is barred by res judicata in view of previous decision in R.CO.P. 121 of 1989. Ex. A2 is the order in RC.A. 81 of 1991. The same was disposed on 12.1.1994. In that case it was held that rents are in arrears only from 1.3.1987 and tenant has paid the entire arrears before eviction proceedings come to an end and landlord has no cause of action. In Ex. A2 the same was confirmed. Ex. A2 is the order in RC.A. 81 of 1991. The same was disposed on 12.1.1994. In that case it was held that rents are in arrears only from 1.3.1987 and tenant has paid the entire arrears before eviction proceedings come to an end and landlord has no cause of action. In Ex. A2 the same was confirmed. It could be seen from Ex. A2 that a sum of Rs. 10,075/ was paid towards rent arrears for the period from 1.3 1987 till September, 1989. 11. After hearing counsel for petitioner, I do not think that he is correct in contending that landlord is claiming eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent from 1.3.1987. What he alleges is that from 1.3.1987 to 31.12.1993, total amount payable is Rs. 26,650/- and out of the said amount, tenant has paid only Rs. 18,525/- inclusive of the amount that is given credit u>in the earlier proceedings. Even though there may not be default as on September, 1989. for the purpose of calculating the amount due total period is taken into consideration and after deducting entire amount paid, landlord has alleged that the amount of Rs. 8,125/- is still due, i.e. , there is default in payment of rent for 25 months. 12. In the eviction petition landlord is very specific when he averred that out of total amount of Rs. 26,650/- only Rs. 18,525/- was paid during the course of eviction proceedings. This contention of landlord is not specifically denied nor that is (he case of tenant that there is more amount than Rs. 18.525/-. His answer in para 4 of the counter reads thus. “The respondent states that during the pendency of the Rent Control proceedings and the appeal, this respondent has been regularly paying the rent in open court as well as out of court and receipts have been issued for payments made out of court. Amounts are paid as and when the matter is taken up sometimes even in lump sum. The petitioner is not entitled to maintain the present petition and there is no default wilful or otherwise. The petitioner never insisted for payment during the Rent Control Appeal, but this respondent has been regularly paying the rent as and when the matter is taken up. This respondent has no intention to commit wilful default.” 13. Present eviction petition was filed on 17.1.1994. i.e.. The petitioner never insisted for payment during the Rent Control Appeal, but this respondent has been regularly paying the rent as and when the matter is taken up. This respondent has no intention to commit wilful default.” 13. Present eviction petition was filed on 17.1.1994. i.e.. immediately after pronouncement of Ex. A2 Judgment rendered on 12.1.1994. For the purpose of appreciating facts, it can be taken that rent arrears upto September, 1989 was paid in view of judgment in earlier case. What is the total amount payable and what was the total amount paid from 1.3.1987 till 31.12.1993 is the matter, tenant alone to prove. He only said that during the course of proceedings whenever appeal came up for hearing, he used to tender the amount. Appellate authority has said that the tenant has conceded that during the period from 21.11.1991 till 12.1.1994. he has paid only Rs. 1,300/-/.?., rent for four months. After disposal of appeal (Ex. A2), an amount of Rs. 4,550-was paid after present application was filed. Thereafter, an amount of Rs, 975/- was paid in the course of proceedings in this case. Four payments during the pendency of Ex. A2 appeal, i.e., Rs. 1.300/- was also taken into consideration by appellate authority. 14. Under Rent Control Act, rent is payable as and when it becomes due. It is a statutory obligation on the part of tenant to pay rent, according to the tenancy agreement. If any date is fixed for payment, the same will have to’ be paid within 15 days from the due date and if no fixed date is given for payment, by the end of month following the month for which rent is due. In case tenant is not paying the amount as per the provisions, he must be deemed to be defaulter in paying rent. By paying Rs. 4,550/-on 18.3.1994 after filing application itself shows that tenant has committed default in payment of rent and that is why he has paid the amount in lump. Subsequent payment of Rs. 975/- also makes it clear that more amount was due as on the date of eviction petition. So the contention taken by tenant that he has paid entire rent as and when it becomes due was rightly rejected by Rent Controller as well as Appellate authority. 15. Subsequent payment of Rs. 975/- also makes it clear that more amount was due as on the date of eviction petition. So the contention taken by tenant that he has paid entire rent as and when it becomes due was rightly rejected by Rent Controller as well as Appellate authority. 15. Even if the tenant has paid the entire rent j during the course of proceedings, that by itself j will not absolve him from contending that he is not; wilful defaulter. As rightly found by Appellate Authority, when the litigation is pending between parties, tenant should have been little more careful in paying rent as and when it became due tp discharge the statutory obligation. Even from the counter, it is clear that he used to pay the amount in lump only and not on the due dates. From 21.11.1991 to 31.12.1993, i.e., for more than two years, tenant has paid only a sum of Rs. 1,300/-, is admitted by him. That admission has been given importance by the Appellate Authority in his judgment Appellate authority has stated thus, Tamil 16. If tenant has paid only four months rent during the entire period, naturally he has to explain why rent was not paid for more than 20 months. But at the same time, he took a false contention that he has paid the entire arrears and not liable to pay any rent. After having taken such a contention and paying the amount in lumpsum during the course of this proceedings shows that the intention of tenant was not bona fide and he has taken the contention knowing^full well that the samejs fate. Underthe above circumstances, he could be termed only as ‘wilful defaulter’. By taking false contention, his intention is clear that he does not want to pay any rent unless he is compelled to do so. Authorities below are justified in holding that tenant is a wilful defaulter and he is liable to be evicted. 17. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, CMP. 2959 of 1997 is also dismissed.