Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent/ landlord filed R.C.O.P. No.2261 of 1998 on the file of the 12th Court of Small Causes, Chennai for eviction on the ground of willful default in the payment of rent and willful denial of title. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on both grounds and in the Appeal in R.C.A. No.116 of 2003 on the file of the 8th Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the eviction ordered on the ground of denial of title was rejected and the eviction was confirmed on the ground of willful default. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S. No.90 of 1994 against the original owners from whom he took the property on lease and also against the respondent herein for specific performance of oral agreement of sale and also to cancel the registration of sale deed by the original owners in favour of the respondent. That suit was decreed exparte on 10.3.1998 and the exparte decree was set aside only on 22.11.2001. He submitted that in the present Rent Control Petition the default period was from June 1993 to December 1997 and the application was filed only on 16.10.2008 and on the date of application there was a decree in his favour declaring that the sale in favour of the respondent was not valid and therefore on the date of filing of the application there was no default and the respondent herein was not the landlord entitled to collect the rent and hence the application ought to have been dismissed. He further submitted that after coming to know of the sale in favour of the respondent he did not recognize the respondent as his landlord, as the original owners agreed to sell the property and he also filed the suit for specific performance of the oral agreement of sale and also to cancel the sale in favour of the respondent, and he filed I.A. No.203 of 1994 in O.S. No.90 of 1994 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent into Court and no order was passed in that application and the suit in O.S. No.90 of 1994 was taken up for trial. Nevertheless, the revision petitioner was depositing the rent in the Bank account in his name regularly and as the revision petitioner filed the suit for specific performance and also prayed for cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the respondent, he did not pay the rent to him. He further submitted that after eviction was ordered during the pendency of R.C.A. No.116 of 2003 in M.P. No.108 of 2003 he was directed to deposit the arrears of rent from 1.3.1992 to 31.3.2003 and he deposited a sum of Rs.24,605/- and during the pendency of the said revision he deposited a sum of Rs. 5,365/-pursuant to the order dated 16.9.2005 in C.M.P. No.3169 of 2005 and also paid the balance rent pursuant to the order dated 16.6.2006 in C.M.P. No.17546 of 2005. He further submitted that even during the pendency of this revision as per the direction of the Court, he has been depositing the rent before the learned Rent Controller every month without fail and therefore having regard to the fact that he challenged the sale in favour of the respondent and also filed the suit for specific performance and when that suit was pending he was not sure who was the real landlord and therefore he did not pay the rent and hence the default cannot be construed as willful and having regard to the subsequent conduct in paying the rent after the dismissal of the suit filed by him in O.S. No.90 of 1994 the default cannot be construed as willful. He also relied upon the Judgement reported in 98 Law Weekly page 49 Supreme Court (S.Sundaram Pillai Vs. Pattabiraman) in support of his contention. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 28.2.1992 and the revision petitioner filed petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by impleading the original owners and in that application they filed counter stating that they had sold the property to the respondent herein and the counter was also filed in December 1992 and even thereafter, no attempt was made by the revision petitioner to pay the rent to the respondent and he filed the suit in O.S.No.90 of 1994 one year later after coming to know of the sale in favour of the respondent. He further submitted that it is not the case of the revision petitioner that after the agreement of sale there was no liability to pay any rent and therefore even assuming that there was an agreement of sale, unless the parties agreed that the agreement holder was not liable to pay the rent and the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end after entering into the agreement of sale, the tenant has to pay the rent continuously without fail and the tenant neither paid the rent to the original owners nor to the respondent and that would only prove that the revision petitioner has committed willful default. He further submitted that even though when the application was filed by the respondent for eviction, the suit O.S. No.90 of 1994 filed by the revision petitioner was decreed exparte, there was no explanation by the revision petitioner for not paying the rent from January 1993 to February 1998 to the respondent. He therefore submitted that considering all these aspects the Court below rightly held that the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Admittedly, the revision petitioner was a tenant under one Dharam Chand and Sumermal. It is admitted that after the death of the owners Dharam Chand and Sumermal, their legal heirs wanted to sell the property and the revision petitioner and other tenants also expressed their willingness to buy the property and as the minors were there, the applications were filed before the City Civil Court seeking permission of the Court to sell the minors' shares and that was ordered on 7.11.1991 in O.P. Nos.274 and 275 of 1991. After getting the order from the Court the owners sold the tenanted premises to the respondent herein and on that basis the respondent claims to be the owner of the property. Even though, the erstwhile landlords admitted that there was an agreement of sale to sell the property to the respective tenants and also filed petitions seeking permission of the Court to sell the property, they sold the property to the respondent and that was also informed by the erstwhile landlords in their counter filed in the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to deposit the rent. It is also admitted that in December 1992 the counter was filed in R.C.O.P.No.1436 of 1992 filed by the revision petitioner to deposit the rent and R.C.O.P.No.1436 of 1992 was dismissed as the respondents in that petition were no longer the owners of the property. Even thereafter, no attempt was made by the revision petitioner to file Petition under Section 8(5) against the respondent. On the other hand, the revision petitioner kept quiet for one year and filed the suit in O.S. No.90 of 1994 for specific performance and also for cancelling the sale deed in favour of the respondent. That suit was decreed exparte on 10.3.1998 and till such time no attempt was made by the revision petitioner to deposit the rent into Court to show his bona fide. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner was depositing the rent in his account every month and that would prove that there is no default. According to me, the conduct of the tenant in not paying the rent to the landlord even after coming to know that the property was purchased by the landlord and depositing the rent in his own account will not make the default anything less than willful. As stated supra, no attempt was made by the revision petitioner to file an application under Section 8(5) against the respondent and depositing the rent before the learned Rent Controller. Further, after the exparte decree was set aside on 22.11.2001, no attempt was made by him to pay the rent and even after the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.90 of 1994, he did not make any attempt to pay the rent or deposit the rent. In the R.C.A.No.116 of 2003 filed by him against the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P.No.2261 of 1998, he filed an application for stay in M.P.No.108 of 2003, a conditional order was passed directing the revision petitioner to deposit the rent from 1.3.1992 to 31.3.2003 and thereafter only he deposited a sum of Rs.24,605/- even after the dismissal of the suit and during the pendency of the first appeal he did not pay the rent regularly to the respondent nor deposited the rent into Court and only after the orders being passed by this Court he deposited the rent. Therefore, considering the conduct of the revision petitioner in not depositing the rent into Court or to the respondent even after being informed that the respondent has purchased the property, in my opinion, the default committed by the revision petitioner is knowing fully well and the revision petitioner is guilty of laches in paying the rent and there is no bona fide in his claim. 6. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reported in 98 Law Weekly page 49 Supreme Court (S.Sundaram Pillai Vs. Pattabiraman) cannot be applicable to the facts of the case. According to me, whether the tenant has committed willful default or not has to be determined having regard to the facts of the particular case and therefore the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reported in 98 Law Weekly page 49 Supreme Court (S.Sundaram Pillai Vs. Pattabiraman) cannot be applicable to the facts of the case. Further, even assuming that the revision petitioner was under the bona fide belief that he is entitled to the decree in O.S.No.90 of 1994 it was not his case that after the agreement of sale, he ceased to be a tenant and he was in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement of sale. Therefore, in the absence of such plea, he is bound to pay the rent till the suit filed by him is decreed and in this case the suit was dismissed in 2003 and confirmed in appeal and considering all these aspects, the Courts below have rightly held that the default committed by the revision petitioner is willful and ordered eviction. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Courts below and the revision is dismissed. 7. As requested by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I am inclined to grant six months time for eviction on condition of filing an undertaking affidavit by the revision petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order that he would vacate and hand over vacant possession of the tenanted permises to the respondent/ landlord within a period of six months and also on condition of paying the admitted rent regularly without fail to the respondent/ landlord till he vacates and hands over vacant possession of the property. If the revision petitioner commits default either in paying the rent or in filing the undertaking affidavit as stated supra, it is open to the respondent/ landlord to take steps to execute the order of eviction. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.