Revision against the dismissal of appeal held not competent.

S. Mohan, J.

1. This is a very hard case and as the saying goes 'hard case makes bad law'. Both these revisions can be dealt with under a common order. The respondent herein filed H.R.C. No. 3328 of 1978 for eviction of the revision petitioner on three grounds, namely:

1. He wilfully defaulted in payment of rent for the period from 1st July, 1977 to 31st October, 1978;

2. For personal occupation; and

3. For demolition and reconstruction.

While that application was pending, the respondent took out M.P. No. 404 of 1980 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act contending that the admitted rent had not been paid into Court and therefore the counter of the respondent in H.R.C. No. 3328 of 1978 could not be entertained. By an order, dated 22nd August, 1980, the Rent Controller allowed that petition and directed the revision petitioner to pay the respondent herein the rent due from 1st November, 1977 till date at the rate of Rs. 500 per month on or before 5th September, 1980 less admitted arrears of Rs. 3,500 paid, failing which all further proceedings will be stopped and that the revision petitioner will be directed to put the respondent herein in possession of the building and the Rent Controller adjourned the case to be called on 6th September, 1980. Thereafter, on the 4th September, 1980, the revision-petitioner filed M.P. No. 584 of 1980 stating that since he was taking effective steps to prefer an appeal against the order, dated 22nd August, 1980 made in the above M.P., time to deposit may be extended by two weeks since certified copy had not been furnished to him. It was also stated therein that should the Court be not inclined to grant extension, the order, dated 22nd August, 1980 being conditional, will work itself out. One thing which requires; to be stated which has a great bearing on the question to be decided at this stage is what was averred in the affidavit:

Without prejudice to the petitioner's contention, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire amount into Court less the admitted arrears already paid.

This petition was dismissed on 20th September, 1980 and thereupon, M.P. No. 404 of 1980 was taken up and an order, dated 20th September, 1980 was passed to the following effect:

The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Act praying this Court to stop all further proceedings as the respondent has failed to pay the rents before contesting the main petition. This Court by its order, dated 22nd August, 1980 directed the respondent herein to pay the arrears less the admitted arrears to the petitioner on or before 5th September, 1980, failing which all further proceedings will be stopped and the respondent would be directed to put the petitioner in possession of the property. The respondent submitted before the Court that he intends to file an appeal and prayed for operation of the stay of proceedings. This Court again by its order, dated 20th September, 1980 in M.P. No. 584 of 1980 rejected the, plea of the petitioner on the ground that no stay was obtained and dismissed the above said M.P. As the respondent has not complied with the order passed in M.P. No. 404 of 1980, all further proceedings are ordered to be stopped and the respondent is directed to put the petitioner in possession of the property.

2. Aggrieved by the order of eviction mad? under Section 11(4) of the Act and refusal to grant time, two appeals were preferred to the Appellate Authority. H.R.A. No. 1644 of 1980 is against M.P. No. 404 of 1980, while H.R.A. No. 1662 of 1980 is directed against M.P. No. 584 of 1980. They were dealt with as independent appeals and by an order of even date 30th July, 1981, on a consideration of the entire matter, both the appeals came to be dismissed. Further it requires to be stated that during the pendency of the appeals, the amount directed to be deposited in M.P. No. 404 of 1980 was deposited. Notwithstanding the same, the appeals came to be dismis