Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is strictly limited in its application to specific situations and authorities mentioned therein, and cannot be applied generally to all proceedings under the Act before every authority functioning under the Act, including the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction.

ISMAIL, J. :- The civil revision petition has been preferred under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the landlady against the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority functioning under the Act. The petitioner herein filed R. C. O. P. No. 163 of 1973 before the Rent Controller, Coimbatore, for eviction of the respondent herein on two grounds, namely, the respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rent and secondly the landlady petitioner bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority held against the petitioner on both these grounds and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent under S. 10 of the Act. It is to revise these orders C. R. P. No. 2271 of 1976 has been preferred.

2. C. M. P. No. 12384 of 1977 has been filed under S. 11 (4) of the Act to stop all further proceedings in the civil revision petition and make an order directing the respondent tenant to put the petitioner landlady in possession of the building on the ground that the respondent had not paid the arrears of rent.

3. Both the civil revision petition as well as the civil miscellaneous petition, referred to above, are contested by the respondent herein.

4. As far as the civil revision petition is concerned the findings of the authorities under the Act are concurrent both on the question whether the respondent tenant had committed wilful default in the payment of rent or not and on the question whether the petitioner landlady bona fide required the premises for her own use and occupation or not. Apart from these findings on these two questions being concurrent, there is evidence to support these findings, and we are not satisfied with reference to the evidence available on record that the said findings can be characterised as erroneous so as to warrant interference by this court in revision.

5. Consequently, the civil revision petition fails and it is dismissed.

6. Major portion of the arguments on both sides have been addressed only with regard to the civil miscellaneous petition. As far as the petitioner is concerned, as we pointed out already, the application has been filed under S. 11 (4) of the Act for direction to the respondent tenant to put the landlady petitioner in possession of the property on the allegation that the respondent tenant had not paid the arrears of rent. The learned counsel for the respondent wanted time for filing a counter affidavit to verify whether the respondent tenant had paid the rents or not. However, since the maintainability of the civil miscellaneous petition itself was challenged by the counsel for the respondent, we did not give time for filing a counter immediately and we informed the learned counsel for the respondent that we will consider the question of giving time for filing a counter if we bold that the civil miscellaneous petition is competent and therefore we heard arguments on the maintainability of the civil miscellaneous petition. Consequently, we are now considering the question regarding the maintainability of the civil miscellaneous petition.

7. For the purpose of understanding the points urged before us, it is necessary to extract S. 11 of the Act in full-

11. Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction- (a) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under S. 10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that section, or to prefer any appeal under S. 23 against any order made by the Controller on the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent whic