Case: Sukhesh Chand Gupta Vs. Madan Lal

2. The appellant is aggrieved since two concurrent findings on default in payment of rent have been upset by the High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the tenant that the defaulted rent had been sent by money order and it is the landlord, who refused to accept the money order.

Reasoning: 3. There is no dispute that the case of money order was not set up before the trial court or before the first Appellate Court. That was set up only before the High Court4. Even assuming, the High Court could look into such materials at that stage, it is seen from the money order that the amount sent was Rs. 632/in the month of May, 2002 when the rent was only paltry sum of Rs. 24/5. Therefore, this is a case of willful default for all purposes and hence, the High Court was not justified in reversing the findings.