Applicability of the provisions of 11(1), (3) and (4).

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner is these Civil Revision petitions. The respondent-landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 4192 of 1982 against the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), praying for an order of eviction against the petitioner. Though the tenant appears to have initially contested the eviction proceedings so initiated by the landlord, on 2-3-1983, an ex parte order of eviction was passed against the tenant. In M.P. No. 339 of 1983, the tenant filed an application to set aside the ex parte order of eviction and on 11-3-1983, that application was dismissed, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 1141 of 1983 before the Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. During the pendency of that appeal, the landlord filed M.P. Nos. 364 and 365 of 1983 purporting to be under Section 11(3) and (4) of the Act praying that the quantum of total arrears for rent payable by the tenant from September, 1982 should be determined and for a direction to the tenant to pay all the arrears and in default to step further proceedings and pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises in the occupation of the tenant. Amongst others, the tenant, in paragraphs 3 and 7 of the counter filed, raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the applications in M.P. Nos. 364 and 365 of 1983 on the ground that the appeal in R.C.A. No. 1141 of 1983 was not against an order for eviction passed under Section 10 of the Act and therefore, Sections 11(3) and (4) of the Act could not be invoked by the landlord. The Appellate Authority in a common order, overruled the objection so raised by the tenant on the ground that the landlord has a right to invoke Section 11 (3) and (4) of the Act and that in the interests of justice, the landlord could maintain the applications. So holding, the Appellate Authority proceeded to determine the quantum of arrears of rent payable by the tenant at Rs. 7,950 and directed the tenant to deposit in Court or pay to the landlord that amount on or before 21-2-1984, failing which, the court directed that the main R.C.A. No. 1141 of 1983 shall stand dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged by the tenant in these Civil Revision petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the appeal preferred by the tenant in R.C.A. No. 1141 of 1983 was against the order dismissing the application filed by him to set aside the ex parte order of eviction and that cannot be in any manner considered to be an order passed on an application under Section 10 of the Act or even render the appeal in R.C.A. No. 1141 of 1983 as one against an order passed under Section 10 of the Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 11 (1), (3) and (4) of the Act could not be invoked by the landlord and the applications filed in M.P. Nos. 364 and 365 of 1983 could not have been entertained at all by the Appellate Authority, Reliance in this connection was placed upon the decisions reported in R. Radha v. C.R. Govindarajulu 91 LW 443, and Murugaiya Konar v. Daniel Nursing Home 1988 1 L.W.382. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent, referring to Rules 11 and 12 of the Rules framed under the Act and Section 23 of the Act, submitted that since under Section 23 of the Act an appeal would lie against, any order of the Controller, that would - also include an appeal against the order dismissing the application to set aside the ex parte order of eviction and that such an order declining to set aside the ex parte order of eviction should also be construed as one passed under Section 10 of the Act.

3. There is no dispute that against the tenant, an ex parte order for eviction was passed in R.C.O.P. No. 4192 on 2-3-1983 and the application filed by the tenant to set aside that order i