Ramachandra Iyer, J.
1. This Revision is against the order in H.R.A. No. 63 of 1955 on the file of the Court of Small Causes at Madras. The landlord is the petitioner. He filed an application to the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant who is the respondent to this Civil Revision Petition. His complaint was that there has been a wilful default in the payment of rent for the month of October, 1954. It is admitted that rent was not paid within the time stipulated under the agreement. Thereupon the landlord gave notice calling upon the tenant to pay the rent on 8th October, 1954. Thereafter a cheque was handed over to the landlord re-presenting the rent due. But that cheque was dishonoured. The landlord again re-presented the cheque. Then also it was dishonoured. Having no other alternative he filed an application for eviction of the tenant for wilful default in the payment of the rent. After the notice of the application reached the tenant he sent the rent for the month of October, 1954. The Rent Controller held that under the circumstances there was a wilful default in the payment of rent and granted eviction as prayed for.
2. An appeal was taken by the tenant to the Appellate Authority who held, that there has been no wilful default in the payment of rent.
3. The landlord has come to this Court in revision. I am unable to agree with the Appellate Tribunal. The learned advocate for the respondent, Mr. C. Govindaraja Ayyangar, supports the Judgment of the Appellate Tribunal by saying that, on the date when his client handed over the cheque to the landlord, he had ample funds in his accounts, but that by the time the cheque was presented to the Bank for collection his client had run through the credit balance in his favour and that was the reason why the cheque was dishonoured. The learned advocate further argues that it was the duty of the landlord to have immediately presented the cheque for realisation lest the funds standing to the credit of the drawer may be depleted. I am unable to subscribe to these propositions. It is the duty of the tenant to pay the rent in cash though it is open to the landlord to accept the cheque as a conditional payment of the amount. In the present case that condition has not been satisfied as it is admitted now that the cheque was not honoured although it was presented to the Bank on two occasions. Therefore, there has been a default in the payment of rent.
4. The question then is whether there has been wilful default. Where a tenant commits a default by not paying the rent on the due date and then presents the cheque knowing that the cheque would not be honoured, it cannot be anything but a wilful default. In the present case the tenant did not even send cash to the landlord immediately after the cheque was dishonoured. The money was sent only after notice of the application for eviction was given to the tenant. I am therefore of opinion, that there has been a wilful default in the payment of rent and that the tenant is liable to be evicted.
5. I therefore set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and restore that of the Rent Controller.
6. Mr. Govindaraja Ayyangar for the tenant requested that some time may be given to him for; vacating the premises. He says that a period of six months may be fixed. Mr. T.S. Raghavachariar the learned advocate for the petitioner, has no objection to give this time. There will therefore be stay of execution for the said period of six months from this date.
7. The result is, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed but there will be no order as to costs.