Wilful default in rent control: conscious non-payment, with a rebuttable presumption after two months' notice.

In rent-control eviction for non-payment, "wilful default" is treated as an intentional, deliberate and conscious breach without justifiable cause. The Explanation added to section 10(2) creates a strong statutory presumption of wilfulness where the landlord serves two months' notice and the tenant still fails to pay, but it does not wholly bar judicial scrutiny in every case. The proviso and Explanation are read harmoniously so neither becomes redundant, and where the notice condition is absent the court may still examine wilfulness on the facts. A dissent took the view that the Explanation supplied an exhaustive definition tied to continued default after notice.

---

---

Issues: Interpretation of "wilful default" in the proviso to section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and the effect of the Explanation added by Act 23 of 1973; the resulting entitlement to eviction in the connected appeals.

Analysis: The majority held that "wilful default" denotes a default that is intentional, deliberate, conscious, and without justifiable cause. The proviso to section 10(2) was treated as conferring relief where the default is not wilful, while the Explanation was treated as creating a strong statutory presumption of wilfulness where the landlord issues two months' notice and the tenant still fails to pay. At the same time, the Explanation was not read as wholly excluding judicial scrutiny in every case; where no notice is given, the Controller or court may still examine whether the default is wilful on the facts. The provisions were thus construed harmoniously so that neither the proviso nor the Explanation is rendered otiose.

Conclusion: The legal test of wilful default was laid down as a conscious and deliberate breach of the obligation to pay rent, with the Explanation operating as a strong presumption of wilfulness upon continued default after two months' notice, rebuttable by sufficient cause. Applying that approach, some appeals were allowed and some dismissed, depending on the facts found.

Concurring Opinion: No separate concurrence materially differing from the majority was recorded.

Dissenting Opinion: Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. held that the Explanation supplied an exhaustive definition of wilful default, so that default continuing after two months' notice alone constituted wilful default, and other circumstances could not be treated as wilful default outside the Explanation.

Final Conclusion: The connected matters were disposed of by a mixed outcome, with eviction sustained in some cases and set aside in others according to the majority test on wilful default.

Ratio Decidendi: In rent-control eviction for non-payment, "wilful default" means an intentional and conscious default; an explanatory clause may create a strong presumption on continued default after notice, but must be construed harmoniously with the proviso and does not automatically exclude examination of wilfulness where the statutory notice requirement is absent.

---