Wilful default in rent payment requires intentional non-payment; a bona fide belief in purchase rights can defeat eviction.

Non-payment of rent under Section 10(2) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 can justify eviction, but the proviso protects a tenant whose default is not wilful by allowing time for payment and rejection of the eviction claim on compliance. Wilful default is treated as intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious non-payment with knowledge of the legal consequences. On the facts discussed, the tenant's failure to pay rent stemmed from a bona fide, though mistaken, belief that he had a prior right to purchase the premises under an oral agreement and had already paid earnest money. That genuine belief negatived wilful default and entitled the tenant to the proviso's protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenant's omission to pay rent, on the asserted belief that he had a prior right to purchase the premises under an oral agreement, amounted to wilful default so as to disentitle him to the benefit of the proviso to Section 10(2) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 10(2) permits eviction for non-payment of rent, but the proviso protects a tenant whose default was not wilful by enabling the Controller to grant time to make payment and reject the eviction application on compliance. Wilful default was treated as intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious default with full knowledge of the legal consequences. On the facts found, the tenant had not refused to pay rent without cause; he genuinely believed, though mistakenly, that he had a prior contractual right to purchase the property and had already paid earnest money. That bona fide belief negatived a conclusion that the default was wilful within the meaning of the proviso.

Conclusion: The tenant was entitled to the protection of the proviso, and the finding of wilful default could not stand.

---