M. Fakkir Mohammed, J.
1. In this case the revision petitioner is the landlady who has filed H.R.C.O.P. No. 123 of 1977 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirunelveli for eviction of the tenant, who is a medical practitioner on the ground of wilful default in the payment of, arrears of rent for 11 months between September, 1976 and July, 1977 to the tune of Rs. 705 deducting Rs. 10 paid in excess for August, 1976. The contention of the landlady before the Rent Controller was that the tenant is a chronic wilful defaulter in the payment of rent and that he has committed wilful default as mentioned above in the payment of 11 months rent.
2. The plea of the tenant is that the landlady had requested him to mate lumpsurh payment stating that if payments are made monthly they would be spent away and that even though the tenant was paying the rent in lumpsum in the past, the landlady was received the same without any demur.
3. After a fulfledged enquiry, the Rent Controller found that the, landlady had led the tenant believe that he should pay the rent in lumpsum, that there was no wilful default in the payment of rent. The landlady had also added another ground that the building was required for her own occupation for the purpose of education of her children at Tirunelveli. The plea of the tenant is that the requirement for educating the children is not a bom fide one and that the landlady's intention was to let out the premises for higer rent.
4. Still another ground stated in the petition was that even though the building was let out for residential purpose, the tenant has been using the residence as a clinical laboratory also. The learned Rent Controller has found that the evidence in the proceedings revealed that the children of the, landlady might study only in the tutorial college at Tirunelveli, that P.W. 2 had stated that he did not know the tutorial college, Where their sons are studying and that in Exhibit A-12 letter, dated 1st June, 1974 the purpose of the requirement of the building was stated as for managing the property as well as for higher education and that therefore the requirement of the landlady was not true and bona fide.
5. Regarding the use of the premises as a clinicial laboratory is concerned, the evidence disclosed that a major portion of the building was utilised by the doctor-tenant for residential purposes only, even though the room was utilised as a clinic and that the landlady admitted in evidence that the tenant had taken the building mainly for running a clinic. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller has found that the third ground stated in the petition is not a real ground. Accordingly, the eviction petition was dismissed.
6. The tenant had remitted the entire 11 months rent immediately after receipt of the notice from the landlady.
7. On appeal to the appellate authority, namely, the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, the findings of the Rent Controller have been confirmed in C.M.A. No. 2 of 1979 by order, dated. 24th September, 1980. Hence this revision.
8. The main grounds that are urged in the revision are that both the Courts have failed to properly consider the continuous wilful default committed by the tenant in the payment of rent, that the lower Court had fallen into an error in turning down the bona fide requirements of the premises for the landlady's own occupation. The alleged misuse of, the premises for running a clinical laboratory is not urged in revision.
9. The facts that the tenant is a doctor, who has been occupying the building from 1955, that the monthly rent was Rs. 45 initially and that the tenant was paying the rent in lump-sum from the inception are evident from Exhibits B-l to B-31 and the said fact has been considered by both the Courts below. The husband of the landlady is a teacher employed at Shencottah and both of them have been residing at Shencottah. P.W. 1 does not dispute the fact that the lumpsum payment of rent by the tenant, who is a doctor was received without any demur and there is no document to show that between 1955 and 1976 the landlady, whose husband is a teacher ever requested the tenant to pay the rents every month instead of sending in lumpsum. The plea and the evidence of the tenant is that) the landlady and her husband were quite cordial and had requested the tenant to pay the rent in lumpsum so that the rents could be saved. Thus, the evidence both oral and documentary has proved the above defence set up by the respondent.
10. P.W. 1 has admitted that only for the purpose of admitting her sons in a tutorial college in Tirunelveli, the landlady demanded the premises from the tenant even though there are tutorial colleges at Shencottah. Since the husband is employed as teacher at Shencottah, there was compelling necessity for the landlady to reside at Shencottah and not at Tirunelveli. It is this compelling circumstance that has weighed in both the Courts below to come to a conclusion that the requirement of the landlady, for own occupation is not a bona fide one.
11. In Komalam Ammal v. Ashoka Cycle and Motor Co. : (1980)1MLJ194 , it has been held by the Madras High Court that though the tenant had not paid the rents for 33 months, the inaction on the part of the landlady's husband, who was a lawyer and who was residing at the upstairs portion of the building to send any notice of demand, suggested that the plea of the tenant that he had been told by the landlady that she should receive the rent in lumpsum was quite probable and that the very conduct of the tenant in having remitted the entire rents for 33 months on receipt of the notice from the landlady probablised the fact that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant in the payment of arrears of rent.
12. In Basappa v. Jumnadoss (1979) 1 M.L.J. 217, it has been held by the Madras High Court that the default as a ground for eviction should be such that it should be so conspicuous to a reasonable person, that the tenant's attitude was nothing but supine indifference and the purposeful evasiveness resulting in recalcitrance and that the circumstance in a particular case, where the landlord was receiving rents in lumpsum without demur, can certainly be a ground for the tenant to set up a case that there was no wilful default or contumacious conduct on his part to avoid payment of renf:.
13. In this case also, it cannot be said that the tenant has commited any wilful default as the landlady had led the tenant believe that he might remit the rents in lump-sum and had been receivingthe rent in lump-sum) from about 1955, till the notice was sent for the first time in 1976.
14. The decisions relied on by thd counsel reported in Nagalinga Josier v. The Trust : (1972)2MLJ623 , related to particular circumstances in the cases that arose for consideration and the facts and circumstances, that have arisen in this case are completely different.
15. So far as the requirement for own use is concerned, it is true that there is a decision of this Court that in case a landlord or landlady required the premises for own occupation, for question of bona fides is alien for consideration unless there are compelling circumstances to disbelieve the version of the, landlord or the landlady. We have already observed that there are compelling circumstances, which have been correctly considered by both the Courts below on the basis of the evidence before them and their conclusion cannot be considered as perverse or baseless. Therefore, on both the grounds the revision petitioner is not entitled to succeed.
16. In the result, therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. The order of the lower Courts are confirmed.