The Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to order payment out of the deposited amount under Section 11(5) of the Act, and the tenant cannot raise the plea of limitation if he had deposited the amount without prejudice to his contention that his liability to pay the fair rent would commence from the date of the final decision fixing the fair rent.

Venkataswami, J.

1. An interesting question of law arises for consideration in this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a tenant in rent control proceedings.

2. The question is whether the Rent Controller is right in ordering payment out of the amount deposited by the tenant under Section 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act'-) after the disposal of the R.C.O.P. and the appeal filed against that order. A subsidiary question that also arises for consideration is whether the Rent Controller, in any event, was right in ordering payment out of the entire amount deposited when a portion of it was not recoverable by the landlord even on the date of deposit by reason of bar of limitation.

3. Let us now look into the facts leading to the filing of this revision petition.

4. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent. The respondent filed an application for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Act on 24.2.1976. The rent controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 946 per month. Aggrieved by that fixation of fair rent both the petitioner and the respondent preferred appeals to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority by a common order fixed the fair rent preferred a revision to this Court and the revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 17.11.1981. Meanwhile, the respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the difference in payment of monthly rents between the agreed rent and the rent as fixed in rent control proceedings. The petitioner took up a stand stating that he was liable to pay the fair rent as fixed from the date of the order and not from the date of the application as claimed by the respondent. In view of the above stand taken by the petitioner the respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 827 of 1982 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. Pending disposal of that application the respondent also filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 11 of the Act for a direction to the petitioner to deposit all arrears of rent due in respect of the building up the payment or deposit. Though the petitioner initially resisted that application ultimately deposited a sum of Rs. 42, 000 with the following endorsement "I deposited the amount only to show my bona fides and to prevent an adverse inference being drawn against me." R.C.O.P. No. 827 of 1982 was ultimately dismissed on 4.3.1986 on the ground that there was no wilfulness on nonpayment of difference in contractual rent and fair rent fixed in rent control proceedings and in any event the differential amount having been deposited under Section 11 there was no case for ordering eviction, Aggrieved by that order of the learned Rent controller the respondent preferred R.C.A. No. 598 of 1986 to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate/Authority also concurred with a view taken by the learned Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal on 26.11.1986. Thereafter the respondent filed M.P. No. 926 of 1986 for payment out of the amount of Rs. 42,000 deposited by the petitioner to the credit of R.CO.P. No. 827 of 1982. That application for payment out was resisted by the petitioner inter alia contending that the Rent Controller after disposal of the R.C.O.P. became functus officio and as such could not order payment out, that R.C.O.P. and also appeal filed against that having been dismissed, there is no question of payment out to the Landlord, that the claim was barred by limitation and that the Rent Controller is not an Authority for collecting rents.

5. The Rent Controller overruling the objections raised by the petitioner/tenant ordered payment out. Aggrieved by that order of payment out the petitioner/tenant has filed this revision petition.

6. Miss O. K. Sridevi, learned Counsel appearing from the petitioner contended that the order of the Rent Controller is totally without jurisdiction is as much as he had become functus officio after he