JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---The present petitioners are the legal representatives of original plaintiff-Sunderlal Kundanmal Patni. The original plaintiff happened to be the owner of Municipal House No. 1/22/92 situated at Devalgaon Raja Road, Jalna. The respondent/original defendant No. 2-Harinarayan Jagannath Nagori, runs a Printing Press, named and titled as "Nagori Printing Press, Jalna" in the said premises as a tenant which initially was on agreed rent of Rs. 80 per month. The Rent Note appeared to have been executed between the parties and as per the said note, tenancy was monthly and rent was payable from month to month basis. 2. The respondent-tenant failed to pay the rent for the period commencing from 1st of January, 1980 till 30th April, 1983 i.e. for the period of forty months amounting to Rs. 3,200/-. The original plaintiff/landlord Sunderlal, as a plaintiff, filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 189/1993 in the Court of learned V Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna for recovery of arrears of rent. This civil suit was filed on 30th April, 1983. 3. During the pendency of the above-said civil suit, the plaintiff initiated Rent Control proceedings under section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purposes of brevity), for eviction of the respondent-tenant. This application under section 15 was filed on 18th May, 1983. In an application under section 15 of the Act, it was the contention of the petitioner that the respondents-tenant were in arrears of rent from 1st January 1980 to 30th April, 1983 amounting to Rs. 3,200/-. Since, according to the plaintiff, it was agreed by the tenant to pay the rent month to month regularly, the tenant failed to pay the same and, therefore, the plaintiff was constrained to initiate the proceedings for eviction. 4. The respondent-tenant opposed the application on all counts by filing written statement contending that there was a practice in vogue observed by the landlord that the landlord used to collect the rent through his Munim at the intervals of three months, four months, six months and occasionally ever for a period of two years, in lump sum. 4. The respondent-tenant opposed the application on all counts by filing written statement contending that there was a practice in vogue observed by the landlord that the landlord used to collect the rent through his Munim at the intervals of three months, four months, six months and occasionally ever for a period of two years, in lump sum. It is further the defence of the respondent-tenant that so far as regards the amount of rent in arrears for the period commencing from 1-1-1980 till 30-4-1983 was concerned, according to the respondent-tenant, the said amount was already paid in cash to the landlord on 16th May, 1983 itself. The respondent-tenant, therefore, contended that since the Munim of the landlord did not turn up so as to collect the rent after December 1979, the rent was accumulated which has been paid, according to the tenant, on 16th May, 1983 in lump sum. With his intellectually chalked out strategical defence the respondent-tenant contended that since the relationship between the landlord and the tenant was cordial, the tenant believed in the statement of the landlord that he would issue the rent receipts subsequently and, therefore, according to the respondent-tenant, he was not in a position to put before the Court any receipts of rent having been paid. According to the tenant prior to the above-said payment of amount on 16th May, 1983, he had attempted to send the rent through a demand draft by registered post acknowledgment due, which is said to have been refused to be accepted by the landlord. This, according to the respondent was on 2nd May, 1983. The tenant further contended that even on 11th May, 1983 such an attempt was made by sending the rent by registered post through Bank draft which was not again accept and, therefore, on the say of the landlord, the tenant paid the whole amount in cash to the landlord. A detailed narration is required to be made so far as regards the defence of the tenant is concerned as it is this defence of the tenant in the instant matter, in the opinion of this Court on which the decision of this litigation hinges. 5. At this stage I would like to shunt the matter on a different track. Necessary reference is already made to the initiation of Regular Civil Suit No. 189/93 which was specifically a suit for recovery of Rs. 5. At this stage I would like to shunt the matter on a different track. Necessary reference is already made to the initiation of Regular Civil Suit No. 189/93 which was specifically a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,200 as arrears of rent for the period from 1-1-1980 to 30-4-1983. The learned V Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna, who dealt with that civil suit by his judgment and decree dated Feb. 20, 1990 decreed the suit and directed the tenant-defendant to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the decretal amount from the date of the suit till its realisation. Suffice it would be to observe that the above-said judgment and decree passed by the learned V Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalna is confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 146/1990 by the Judgment and order dated 20-8-1998 passed by the learned 2nd Additional district Judge, Jalna. 6. Application under section 15 of the Act was registered as File No. 83 ARC/CR/21 on the file of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Jalna. The learned Additional Rent Controller, Jalna who dealt with the matter, by his judgment and order dated August 3, 1989, allowed the application of the landlord and ordered the tenant to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the petitioner-landlord, within a period of thirty days from the date of that order. Needless to mention before passing of the said judgment and order, the learned Additional Rent controller did comply with all the legal formalities, taking defence from the respondent-tenant on the record and after recording of due evidence and dissecting and appreciating the same, reached to the above-said conclusion. The learned Rent Controller while passing the above-referred order dated August 3, 1989, on the basis of the evidence as was adduced by the parties, reached to the conclusion that the petitioner-landlord did definitely prove that the respondent-tenant was a wilful defaulter. Having reached to the positive finding on this issue, the learned Additional Rent Controller could not resist himself from granting relief of eviction, as was sought for by the landlord. 7. The above-said judgment and order of the learned Additional Rent Controller happened to be a subject-matter of challenge by way of an appeal under section 25 of the Act, before the District Judge, Jalna. 7. The above-said judgment and order of the learned Additional Rent Controller happened to be a subject-matter of challenge by way of an appeal under section 25 of the Act, before the District Judge, Jalna. This appeal was registered as Rent Appeal No. 15/1989 and the learned District Judge, Jalna who dealt with the appeal by his judgment and order dated December 20, 1993, allowed the appeal of the respondent-tenant, quashed and set aside the order dated 3-8-1989 passed by the learned Additional Rent controller and the eviction proceedings initiated by the petitioner-landlord stood dismissed. It is this judgment and order dated 20-12-1993 which is the subject-matter of challenge in this Revision Application. 8. Shri S.C. Bora, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, vehemently contended that the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court committed an error in law not only in properly appreciating the facts of the case but in unnecessarily trying to shift the burden of proving the default as wilful one, on the landlord which, in fact, according to Shri Bora, was absolutely a strange observation made by the learned District Judge which indeed is quite contrary to the established proposition of law as, according to Shri Bora, it was for the respondent-tenant to prove that the default was not a wilful. 9. The very basis of the case before the Rent Control authority seeking eviction under section 15 of the Act happened to be a wilful default committed by the tenant in paying the rent. According to Shri Bora, it is incumbent on the tenants to pay the rent monthly, if there is no agreement or contract between the landlord and the tenant otherwise. Shri Bora contended that the conduct of the tenant of making the payment of rent in lump sum not only for months together but on many occasions even for a year or two years points towards the tendency of the tenant of his unwillingness to make the payment of rent regularly. If arrears are accumulated because of such irregular payment of rent then, according to Shri Bora, it would be an index of the mind of the tenant of his having developed the habit of remaining in arrears wilfully. Shri Bora, further, contended that even otherwise since on the day of filing of the application, the respondent-tenant was in arrears of Rs. Shri Bora, further, contended that even otherwise since on the day of filing of the application, the respondent-tenant was in arrears of Rs. 3,2000/- i.e. for forty months, the tenant was liable to be evicted in pursuance of the provisions of the Act. Shri Bora argued that the defence of the respondent-tenant if is minutely observed, it indicates a frame of mind of the tenant of putting a false story before the judicial authorities. The defence taken by the respondent-tenant in the civil suit referred to above, as also in the rent control proceedings was that the amount of rent was paid by the tenant and that the tenant was not in arrears at all, the day on which either the civil suit was filed so far as regards the civil suit was concerned or on the date when the rent control proceedings were initiated. Shri Bora specifically invited attention of this Court towards the statement made in the written statement in the above-said rent control proceedings filed by the respondent-tenant, the portion reads as under :--- "Believing on the representation of the same landlord, the respondent No. 2 got return of the registered post on his name by the Post Office on 16-5-1983 and in cash the said Bank draft by him and he has paid the said cash amount to the land landlord on the same date as per his desire and representation. The respondent No. 2, in view of the long-standing relation from the year 1966 i.e. from 17 years and as per his usual practice of accepting the rent, believed in good faith that it is desirable to avoid annoyance and displeasure of the landlord, handed over the cash amount and requested him to send the regular receipt of the acknowledgment of the said payment and the landlord has promised at that time that he will send the acknowledgment of payment of the said amount and receipt thereof by his Munim at the shop of the respondent No. 2, subsequently." 10. These contents of the written statement are quite opposite to the defence taken by the tenant that he had initially attempted to send the rent for all these months by way of Bank Draft through registered post acknowledgment due which was refused to be accepted by the landlord. These contents of the written statement are quite opposite to the defence taken by the tenant that he had initially attempted to send the rent for all these months by way of Bank Draft through registered post acknowledgment due which was refused to be accepted by the landlord. Even a second attempt was made by the tenant to send the rent through the registered post acknowledgment due. However, the same also was not accepted and, thereafter the landlord had asked the payment to be made in cash. One thing is clear on the record through the defence of the tenant that he was sure of having paid the rent in cash and he had taken that defence also. He had, therefore, alleged that, according to him factually there was no cause of action for the landlord to have initiated either a suit for recovery of rent or the Rent Control proceedings for eviction of the tenant. 11. This defence taken cannot be said to hold good now for the very simple reason that a decree for Rs. 3,200 has been passed and the tenant has subsequently complied with the same by making the payment which virtually nullified his earlier defence of having made the payment in cash. The same defence is taken by the tenant in the Rent Control proceedings wherein he had contended that the rent in cash was also paid and, therefore, the tenant could not be said to be in arrears of rent, much the less, a wilful defaulter. To appreciate this defence, I would like to refer to the issues which were framed by the learned Civil Judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 189/1983. Issue No. 1 in that suit was, "did the defendant prove that he paid rental dues of Rs. 3360 for the period from 1-1-1980 to 30-6-1983 to plaintiff". This issue is specifically held to have not been proved by the defendant-tenant. The second issue was, "did the defendant prove that plaintiff received the rental dues and avoided to issue receipt of it to the tenant". This also is answered in the negative. The finding on both these issues is confirmed by the Appellate Court also, which completely negatived or nullified the defence taken by the tenant in the suit and the same said defence was raised by the defendant in his Rent Control proceedings. This also is answered in the negative. The finding on both these issues is confirmed by the Appellate Court also, which completely negatived or nullified the defence taken by the tenant in the suit and the same said defence was raised by the defendant in his Rent Control proceedings. In view of the finding by the Competent Civil Court on these issues, there hardly remain any scope for the Rent Control authorities to go against this finding of the Civil Court. In the opinion of this Court, these findings were binding on the Rent Control authorities so far as regards the default was concerned. 12. The Additional Rent Controller also, after having appreciated the evidence on the record, reached to the conclusion that it was difficult for him to have accepted the defence that it was a practice developed between the parties i.e. tenant to pay the rent only when the Munim of the landlord would approach the tenant for collecting the rent. The further defence which was raised by the tenant that the rent used to be collected by the Munim as per the convenience some time for months together and occasionally even for the year or two years. The defence, therefore, of the tenant that since the landlord did not turn up to collect the rent which resulted into the tenant to be in arrears of rent, cannot be said to be a wilful default on the part of the tenant and, therefore, the defence which was taken by the respondent-tenant that he was not a wilful defaulter, was difficult for the learned Additional Controller to accept the same. The Rent Controller, therefore, allowed the application ordering eviction. 13. The well-reasoned order of the Rent Controller has been set aside by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court in Paragraph No. 6 of his judgment framed three points for determination. The first being whether the landlord proved that the defendant No. 2 who runs the Printing Press defendant No. 1 was in arrears of rent for the period from 1-1-1980 to 30-4-1983. This point is answered by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court in the affirmative. It is held that the respondent-tenant was in arrears for all these years. This point is answered by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court in the affirmative. It is held that the respondent-tenant was in arrears for all these years. However, the second point which has been framed by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court is, whether the landlord proved that the defendant No. 2 was a wilful defaulter in payment of monthly rent. This point however is answered in the negative. This point alone could be said to be a governor around which the whole litigation has to rotates. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court shifted the burden on the landlord to prove that the default was a wilful one. This shifting of burden on the landlord, in my opinion, is an error committed by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. 14. It is the case of the landlord that the tenant was in arrears of rent not only for months but even for years, as is clear from the record. According to the landlord since the tenant was supposed to pay the rent monthly, as agreed, and since he failed to pay the same, this failure on the part of the tenant-respondent was nothing but a wilful default. If the tenant was not a wilful defaulter it was for the defendant-tenant to prove that it was not a wilful default as it was the practice developed between the parties to pay and accept the rent, as per the convenience i.e. as and when the Munim of the landlord used to collect and the payment was made by the tenant to the Munim as and when he used to approach for collection. 15. Shri Bora, vehemently contended that the question of practice of acceptance and payment in the instant matter does not arise because, according to Shri Bora, it is the defence and a positive defence of the respondent-tenant that he had paid the rent in cash to the landlord and, therefore, according to the tenant, he was not in default at all. Shri Bora, vehemently contended that the question of practice of acceptance and payment in the instant matter does not arise because, according to Shri Bora, it is the defence and a positive defence of the respondent-tenant that he had paid the rent in cash to the landlord and, therefore, according to the tenant, he was not in default at all. Shri Bora, rightly contended that if it would have been accepted by the tenant that the day on which either the civil suit was initiated or the Rent Control proceedings were initiated, the tenant was in arrears and these arrears were because of the practice developed between the parties, only in that case, it would have been possible to have considered the case whether these arrears could be termed to be because of the practice adopted i.e. acceptance and payment of the rent as per the convenience of the parties, which could be said to be not a wilful default. In that case the landlord himself has to be blamed in developing this lethargy in the tenant of not making the payment regularly as per the agreement. I do find considerable force in this argument of Shri Bora. It is not a defence, even by way of an alternative defence in the written statement taken by the tenant that if at all he is held to be in arrears, then in that case, it was because of the practice developed. I reiterate that it is a positive defence taken by the tenant that he had paid the rent and there were no arrears of rent whatsoever. In view of this peculiar positive defence, the question of any practice or wilful default does not arise as the question of default was not there at all, according to the respondent-tenant, much less, the day on which the proceedings were initiated. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, in my view, did not rightly weigh this particular defence. He did not appreciate the same in proper perspective when he shifted the burden of proving the wilful default on the landlord, instead of shifting the burden of proving it to be not a wilful default on the tenant. 16. Shri H.M. Karwa, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-tenant contended that after passing of the decree by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. 16. Shri H.M. Karwa, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-tenant contended that after passing of the decree by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., the decree has been complied with by the tenant and that his appeal also is dismissed by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. According to Shri Karwa, since the decree has been complied with, the tenant could not be said to be in arrears of rent, much less, wilfully. Shri Karwa, further, argued that the tabular statement given in paragraph 9 by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court in his judgment clearly indicates the practice developed between the parties as regards the payment and acceptance of rent. No doubt, after having done arithmetical calculations in the matter, I do find that the tabular statement clearly indicates that Item No. (i) the rent was paid after 18 months for five months. For Item No. (ii) it was paid after 22 months and that for 32, 30, 30, 28, 28 and 22 months respectively for Item (iii) to (viii) given in the said paragraph . No doubt, a clear tendency of acceptance and payment of rent for such a long period was developed by both the landlord and the tenant which could otherwise be termed as a practice developed between the parties and which would not have allowed the landlord to have called the tenant as a defaulter. However this defence raised by the respondent-tenant is of no use to him, in my opinion, because the tenant has come to the Court with a positive defence that he had already paid the rent and he was not at all in arrears of rent. This Court will have to find out whether those arrears could be said to be arrears or default wilfully committed by the respondent-tenant. In view of the defence taken by the respondent-tenant of having paid the rent even before initiation of the Rent Control proceedings and the civil suit definitely recoils on the tenant himself as it reflects on the tendency of the tenant of having not paid the amount wilfully. It is not a specific defence taken by the respondent-tenant that there was a practice of making the payment of rent even after a year or two years. It is not a specific defence taken by the respondent-tenant that there was a practice of making the payment of rent even after a year or two years. The defence which is tried to be raised was that there used to be a practice of making the payment in month or months in lump sum. If we look at the chart as is given by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, we see that the rent for the period between 1-1-1979 and 31-12-1979 and even thereafter, was not paid till the same was recovered by way of decree by the landlord i.e. from 1-1-1980 to 1983 i.e. for about three years together for which the landlord was required to initiate suit. 17. Shri Karwa, argued that since the Munim did not turn up for years together, the tenant was compelled to send the rent by registered post by way of Bank Draft which was twice refused by the landlord and thereafter, according to Shri Karwa, the respondent-tenant paid the amount in cash as per the say of the landlord, however surprisingly without obtaining the receipt therefor from the landlord who had it is alleged, initially refused to accept the rent sent by post. Shri Karwa contended that the relationship between the parties was such which did not find proper for the tenant to have insisted for the rent receipt there and then only. It is nothing but feeble attempt made on the part of the respondent-tenant anyhow to get saved his skin from a stigma as a defaulter and that too a wilful. In my view, when the tenant had come up with a positive defence of having made the payment but the findings by both the Rent Control authority as well as the civil courts is otherwise, is itself quite suggestive of the fact that inspite of having not paid the rent the tenant had taken a false defence. It is, therefore, clear that he did not intentionally or wilfully paid the rent. 18. Shri Karwa, invited my attention to a decision in 1989(1) Bom.C.R. 610 in the matter of (Rashik Lal and others v. Shah Gokuldas)1. Shri Karwa relied on this judgment to show that the practice was developed between the parties to accept and pay the rent as and when the rent was so demanded. 18. Shri Karwa, invited my attention to a decision in 1989(1) Bom.C.R. 610 in the matter of (Rashik Lal and others v. Shah Gokuldas)1. Shri Karwa relied on this judgment to show that the practice was developed between the parties to accept and pay the rent as and when the rent was so demanded. Shri Karwa relied on the observations in this judgment which are as under :--- "..........If he receives the same under a protest and warns the tenant to be regular in payment in the future, he cannot be assumed to have agreed to a modified agreement in this regard. But, if he, without any objection and without letting the tenant know his thought process, continues to receive rent at intervals of several months, he cannot be allowed to spring a surprise on the tenant by suddenly starting proceeding for eviction. Having lulled the tenant in the belief that things were all right, the landlord was under a duty to serve him with a notice demanding regular payment, if he wished to insist upon it." Relying on these observations, Shri Karwa contended that at no point of time, it was ever expressed by the landlord nor did he gave any notice to the tenant informing that thereafter he was supposed to pay the rent regularly as per the agreement. It is to be noted that in paragraph 7 of the said judgment, it is observed by the Supreme Court," normally, a monthly tenant is under an obligation to pay rent from month to month, but this obligation is subject to a contract to the contrary." Keeping in view this observation, no doubt, in the instant matter there does not appear to be any steps taken by the landlord to have intimated the tenant to make payment of the rent regularly. Shri Karwa's contention that he should not have been taken by surprise by initiating the eviction proceedings and rent proceedings against the tenant labelling him as defaulter much less a wilful defaulter. Shri Karwa's contention that he should not have been taken by surprise by initiating the eviction proceedings and rent proceedings against the tenant labelling him as defaulter much less a wilful defaulter. This argument of Shri Karwa would have impressed the Court very much and would have been of some help to Shri Karwa provided had there been a positive defence taken by the tenant that the day on which the proceedings were initiated, the tenant was in arrears, but those arrears were accumulated because of the practice developed by the parties amongst themselves of accepting and paying the rent as and when the landlord would demand by asking his Munim to go and collect the same as per the convenience of the parties. In my opinion, therefore the judgment cited by Shri Karwa cannot be said to be of any help to the tenant. 19. Shri Karwa, further, invited my attention to another decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 639 in the matter of (Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Bajranglal Singhania)2. Relying on this judgment, Shri Karwa suggested that the very conduct of the respondent-tenant to have sent the rent by post indicates that the tenant was ready and willing to pay the rent. In fact, this judgment also, in my opinion, is not of any help to Shri Karwa, for the simple reason that as stated earlier, it was not his case through his defence in both the written statements before the Rent Control authority and before the Civil Court that no doubt he was in arrears but it was because of the practice the arrears were accumulated and he was ready and willing to pay immediately. In my opinion, therefore this case also is of no use to the respondent-tenant. 20. Shri Karwa, then, invited my attention to yet another decision reported in 1993(1) Mah.L.R. 318 in the matter of (Mangalbhai v. Dr. Radheshyam Parishchandra Agarwal and another)3. This is a decision rendered under the provisions of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control, 1949. In this matter the subject was as regards the default in payment of rent whether the tenant can be said to be a habitual defaulter. That terminology is specifically used in that Rent Control Order. Radheshyam Parishchandra Agarwal and another)3. This is a decision rendered under the provisions of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control, 1949. In this matter the subject was as regards the default in payment of rent whether the tenant can be said to be a habitual defaulter. That terminology is specifically used in that Rent Control Order. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with the matter, specifically observed that if there was a practice and course of conduct adopted for receipt of rent for a number of years, the tenants cannot be taken by surprise by at once resorting to an application under Clause 13(3)(ii) as the tenants in that case were habitual defaulters. In my opinion, in fact, this point does not fall for consideration in the instant case because the whole approach towards this matter will have to be different from the approach towards those matters wherein there were specific cases when the tenant was in arrears, he accepted to be in arrears but he forwarded the necessary reasons for being in arrears. In the instant case, the tenant has come out with a positive statement of having paid the rent and that he was not at all in arrears. This defence is, no doubt, proved to be false through the findings in civil suit. 21. Another decision cited by Shri Karwa is 1992(1) S.C.C. 369 in the matter of (Premchand Ranka v. A. Vasantrao Khatod and others)4. It is a case wherein the courts below had held that the appellant was a wilful defaulter although he had paid the arrears in lump sum. The Supreme Court observed that since the fact remains that the payment was made in lump sum which has been accepted by the landlord, and this method of payment went on for quite a long time, in those circumstances, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that it could not be said that there was a wilful default on the part of the tenant. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the orders of the courts below and directed the appellant in that case to make the payment of arrears upto date within a month from the date of that order and the tenant was directed to make the payment regularly month by month. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the orders of the courts below and directed the appellant in that case to make the payment of arrears upto date within a month from the date of that order and the tenant was directed to make the payment regularly month by month. From this judgment, we can conveniently see that the defence taken by the tenant was that because of the practice he remained in arrears. The question is in all those cases cited by Shri Karwa we find that the tenant did not come to the Court with a false defence that he had paid the rent, as is the defence taken in the present case. With all seriousness I have to observe that it is the very defence taken by the tenant which has become the cause for his own fall. 22. Shri Bora, invited my attention to various judgments, out of which I would like to refer to few only. Shri Bora invited my attemton to the decision reported in 1984 Mah.L.R. 160 in the matter of (Shashikant Patil v. Mohammed)5. Relying on this judgment Shri Bora argued that the burden is always on the tenant to shows that the default committed was not a wilful default and the burden does not lie on the landlord to prove that the default was wilful. Whether the default is a wilful default or not, and what is wilful default for this purpose, Shri Bora invited my attention to the decision reported in A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 582 in the matter of (S. Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabiraman)6, Shri Bora invited my attention to paragraph Nos. 21 to 25. Para 25 of the said judgment deals with the point as to what is default, what is wilful default and what is wilfulness etc. Relying on these observations, Shri Bora contended that even in the instant matter, when the tenant knew that he was in arrears of rent even on the day on which the proceedings were initiated against him in the Civil Court by way of civil suit as also before the Rent Control authorities under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, even then instead of accepting his default and giving reasons therefor, unfortunately, the tenant took as defence of having paid the rent and not being in default at all. If thereafter the competent courts come to the conclusion that the tenant was in default, such a default then has to be termed in my opinion definitely a wilful defend nothing else. In such a case, in my opinion, the defence is not available to the tenant to say that it was a practice developed between the landlord and the tenant to have accepted and paid the rent as per the convenience of the parties or otherwise, as has been developed through the practice. 23. Shri Bora also invited my attention to the recent decision of this court reported in 2000(2) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)759 in the matter of (Shrikrishna Oil Mill v. Radhakishan Ramchandra)7, wherein it is specifically observed that the default in payment of rent by tenant, the burden lies always on tenant to prove that the default was not wilful. Shri Bora further relied on this judgment to suggest that if a default is there in the payment of rent, the practice of payment of accumulated rent cannot be accepted by way of explanation or defence to infer that the default was not a wilful default. The observations that if such a practice is accepted by the defence covered under the provisions, the main provision is permanently defeated and, therefore, such a practice which defeats the provision permanently and makes the law nugatory cannot be accepted as an explanation to infer that the tenant is not a wilful defaulter. I do not see any reason to differ from this view. 24. Shri Bora, also invited my attention to a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in A.I.R. 1978 A.P. 319 in the matter of (Pallapothu v. Kidanbi)8. Shri Bora relied on this judgment just to suggest that merely because the rent which has been paid through the decree which is accepted by the landlord, would not amount to waiver by the petitioner-landlord, of his right to have asked for eviction on the ground of default committed by the tenant which would virtually amount to wilful default. 25. Shri Bora, cited yet another decision reported in A.I.R. 1983 Bom. 417 in the matter of (Ramchandra v. Ramniwas)9. 25. Shri Bora, cited yet another decision reported in A.I.R. 1983 Bom. 417 in the matter of (Ramchandra v. Ramniwas)9. Relying on this judgment, Shri Bora argued that the payment of rent through the decree but which is definitely recovered only after initiation of the rent control proceedings in eviction, would not come in the way of the landlord to have a decree for eviction on the ground that the tenant on the day of initiation of the proceedings was not only in arrears but the arrears could be termed as wilful default on the part of the tenant. 26. I have, therefore, no hesitation in observing that the default committed by the tenant in the instant matter, in view of his positive defence taken in the proceedings, has to be held, a wilful default and if it would not have been a wilful default then in that case the tenant should have been hesitate in accepting early that he was default because of the practice developed. I am, therefore, not in a position to agree with the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court when the Judge in one breath specifically observes that the tenant was in arrears of rent or had defaulted, but the default was not wilful. The learned Judge did not appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In view of this judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has to be quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Additional Rent Controller is restored to file. 27. Shri Karwa, further, contended that the revisional powers of this Court should not be exercised in this matter particularly when, according to Shri Karwa, the order passed by the learned Judge cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. No doubt, in ordinary course, this Court would not have interfered in the matter; but when a glaring mistake or error is committed by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case wherein this Court can exercise its revisional powers to set right the matter and also in the interest of justice. 28. 28. Shri Karwa, at this stage, requested that since the respondent-tenant is already having his business of printing in the premises in question and some portion is in his occupation for the purpose of residence, the tenant be given a reasonable time to vacate the premises in question. Shri Bora fairly conceded that taking into consideration the business activity and residence problem of the tenant, he be granted same reasonable time. Shri Karwa requested that he be given twelve months time to vacate the premises in question: whereas Shri Bora left the matter to the discretion of this Court. Taking into consideration the approach of the landlord and considering that there was likelihood of some inconvenience to the tenant, this Court is of the opinion that six months time from today to the respondent-tenant to vacate the premises in question would be just and sufficient. However with a further understanding that the tenant should file an affidavit in this Court within three weeks from today to the effect that he shall vacate the premises in question without creating any further litigation in the matter and giving a cause for the landlord to initiate further proceedings for eviction. Needless to mention that the agreed rent shall also be paid by the tenant respondent to the landlord regularly every month hereafter on or before 10th of each month till the tenant vacates the premises in question. It is also made clear that whatsoever arrears of rent are there, the same shall be paid by the respondent-tenant to the landlord within 45 days from today and the same shall be paid to the landlord directly by demand draft and the landlord states that he shall accept the same immediately which is tendered to him, if paid within the above stipulated time. 29. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Application is allowed. However in the circumstances of the case, there will be no orders as to costs. Civil revision application allowed. -----