Judgment :- 1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. 2. Respondent/landlord filed the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default and for own occupation. The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the revision petitioner/tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and the requirement of the landlord is also bona fide and ordered eviction. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default and rejected the claim of the landlord for owner's occupation. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 3. It is submitted by Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the court below has not properly appreciated the fact that the eviction petition was filed by an unauthorised person and therefore, the Rent Controller ought not to have taken the petition for eviction on file and as per the petition, the power agent has filed the petition for eviction and no authorisation authorising the power agent to file the petition was filed and no permission of the Rent Controller was also obtained and hence, the initiation of the case itself is against the provisions of Order III Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the petition is not maintainable and relied upon the judgment reported in THE LAKSHMI MILLS CO. LTD., v. R.RAMAJAAM & 3 OTHERS (2009-5-LW 73). LTD., v. R.RAMAJAAM & 3 OTHERS (2009-5-LW 73). He further submitted that the rent according to the tenancy agreement is only Rs.65,000/= per month and the landlord claimed Rs.1,00,000/= towards rent and that amount was also paid by the tenant and the landlord has also accepted in evidence that till 30.4.2009, the entire rent was paid and even thereafter, the revision petitioner has been paying the rent regularly and without appreciating the same, the court below ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default and relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in K.A.RAMESH & OTHERS v. SMT.SUSHEELA BAI & OTHERS (1998-2 LW-300) and submitted that as per the proviso to section 10 (2), the Rent Controller ought to have given reasonable time to pay the arrears of rent, if any, if the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the default is not wilful and without giving a finding that the default is wilful and without giving a reasonable time to pay the arrears, if any, the courts below ought not to have confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default and therefore, the orders of the courts below are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that though in the agreement, the rent was mentioned as Rs.65,000/= per month, thereafter, the tenant has taken possession of one room in the upstairs and agreed to pay Rs.35,000/= towards that room and therefore, the rent was fixed at Rs.1,00,000/= per month and the tenant also did not produce the particulars of income tax paid to enable the landlord to claim exemption and the tenant was paying the rent after deducting the income tax and even assuming that the tenant has paid income tax, the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from November 2006 and even after the issuance of lawyer's notice, the revision petitioner has not paid the rent and the revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/= by way of cheque towards arrears of rent and that was also returned dishonoured and even during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the revision petitioner was not regular in paying the rent and therefore, the revision petitioner has committed wilful default and therefore, the concurrent findings of fact regarding the wilful default need not be interfered with in the revision. He further submitted that the respondent produced the power of attorney before the court below and obtained the permission from the court and thereafter, the case was numbered and also filed the xerox copies of the power of attorney and the affidavit filed before the learned Rent Controller for accepting the same and the orders passed thereon in the typed set of papers filed on 24.11.2011 and submitted that the initiation of proceedings by the power agent is proper and the revision petitioner is also aware of the same and therefore, he has not raised the objection before the court below and now, it is not open to him to raise the plea in this revision. 5. It is seen from the cause title that the petition for eviction was filed by the power agent of the landlord viz., her husband. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the power of attorney document was not accepted and no permission was obtained from the court and therefore, the initiation of the proceedings is not proper. In the judgment reported in THE LAKSHMI MILLS COMPANY LIMITED v. RAMAJAAM AND 3 OTHERS (2009-5-LW 73), this court has held that unless the power agent obtains permission from the court for filing the suit, the initiation is illegal. In the reported judgment, the order passed by the court below permitting the power agent to file a suit was challenged and in that context, it was held in that judgment that when the order reveals no application of mind, the order is liable to be set aside and the matter was remitted to the court below. In this case, the facts are different and as stated supra, the deed of power of attorney was filed before the court below and an affidavit was also filed seeking permission to the agent to file the suit and that was also ordered and no objection was raised by the tenant before the Rent Controller as well as before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and only in the revision, that plea has been taken and hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the initiation of the proceedings by the agent is not proper cannot be accepted. 6. 6. As regards the question of wilful default committed by the tenant in payment of rent, both the courts below concurrently held that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent. Though in the agreement Ex.P1, the rent is mentioned as Rs.65,000/= per month, it is admitted by the respondent in evidence that the rent per month is Rs.1,00,000/= and they have been paying the rent at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/= per month. Further, it is the specific case of the respondent/landlord that from November 2006, the tenant has not paid the rent and despite the issuance of notice, the tenant had failed to pay the rent and after receipt of the lawyer's notice by the respondent, the tenant issued cheque for Rs.5,00,000/= representing the rent and admittedly, that cheque was returned dishonoured and thereafter, the amount was paid by the tenant during the pendency of proceedings. 7. Further, the records would also prove that even during the pendency of proceedings, the tenant was not regular in payment of rent and even after paying the entire arrears of rent on 30.4.2009, the tenant has committed default in payment of rent and they remitted the rent from April 2009 to December, 2009 for nearly nine months by way of deposit before the court below and that would also prove that the tenant was not regular in payment of rent even during the pendency of the proceedings. It has been held by this court in the judgment in K.KARUPPIAH v. B.KUBENDRAN ( 2009 (2) CTC 595 ) that when the tenant has committed default in payment of rent, even after filing of the eviction petition, such default can only be construed as wilful and when the application is filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and even during the pendency of the eviction petition, if the tenant commits wilful default, such conduct on the part of the tenant can only be considered as wilful default. In the reported judgment, the Honourable Judge relied upon various judgments of this Honourable Court to arrive at a conclusion that the subsequent conduct of the tenant in payment of rent can also be taken into consideration to decide whether the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and in this case, as stated supra, even during the pendency of proceedings, the tenant has committed default and he was in the habit of paying the rent in lumpsum and the conduct of the tenant is nothing but wilful. 8. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reported in 1998-2-LW 300, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the evidence let before the Rent Controller shows that the tenant had not committed wilful default in the payment of rent during the relevant time though the grievance is made in the eviction petition and therefore a reasonable time has to be given to the tenant to pay the amount and having regard to the facts of the case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the tenant has not committed default in payment of rent. In the reported judgment, the facts are otherwise and in that case the landlord issued telegram calling upon the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and even before filing of the application, the tenant has sent the rent by demand draft and on the next day of filing the eviction petition, the demand draft reached the landlord and the landlord encashed the same and in that context, it was held that the tenant has not committed wilful default. 9. As stated supra, in this case, the tenant has not paid the rent immediately after the filing of the petition for eviction and he issued a cheque representing the arrears of rent and that was dishonoured and thereafter, he paid the rent and he also committed default during the pendency of the proceedings and considering all these aspects, both the courts below have concurrently held that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the occurrent finding of fact by the courts below. Further, the conduct of the tenant also makes it clear that he does not deserve any indulgence from this court. 10. Further, the conduct of the tenant also makes it clear that he does not deserve any indulgence from this court. 10. Admittedly, the tenant has paid an advance of Rs.5,00,000/= as per Ex.P1 agreement of lease and it is the specific case of the tenant that an advance of Rs.9,00,000/= was paid and Rs.4,00,000/= was paid subsequently and the tenant has been making allegations in air without any basis and having regard to such conduct of the tenant, he cannot be shown any indulgence. Hence, the orders of the courts below are confirmed. The revision is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.