C.R.P.No.1850 of 2003 has arisen from the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Dindigul, made in R.C.A.No.24 of 1999 setting aside the order of the Rent Controller, wherein the petition filed by the landlord, the first respondent herein in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1989 under Sections 10(2) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to evict the tenant was dismissed, while the second revision in C.R.P.No.1851 of 2003 has arisen from the judgment of the Appellate Authority made in R.C.A.No.23 of 1999 reversing the order of the Rent Controller wherein the petition filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.85 of 1988 under Sec.8(5) of the Act to deposit the monthly rental in Court was allowed.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 as arrayed in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1989.

3. One Manickam Chettiar, the second respondent alleging that he was a tenant under the petitioner landlord; that when lawful tenders were made of the rent directly and through money order, they were refused by the landlord, and hence, there arose a necessity to deposit the rental in Court, filed R.C.O.P.No.85 of 1988. The same was contest