Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is only applicable to cases where the tenant contests an eviction petition before the Rent Controller or prefers an appeal against an eviction order.

1. The tenant has filed the above two civil revision petitions. The first C.R.P.No.2332 of 1997 is against the order dated 26. 1997 in M.P.No.1049 of 1996 in R.C.A.No.892 of 1996 on the file of the VIII Judge Court of Small Causes, Madras. The second C.R.P.No.2333 of 1997 is against the order passed in R.C.A.No. 892 of 1996 dated, 26. 1997 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras. The order passed in the main appeal is consequential. Hence if we dispose of the first civil revision petition and if the tenant succeeds in the first CRP, the second C.R.P. has to be allowed.

2. The facts are as follows:- The landlord filed R.CO.P.No.1006 of 1992 for eviction on the ground of wilful default etc., for the period from 10. 1992 to 22. 1993. The petitioner filed a counter stating that there was advance of Rs. 19,000. It was also mentioned that on an earlier occasion another R.CO.P.No.2905 of 1988 was filed. That petition was dismissed. The original landlord K.H. Mohamed Zackaria died on 22. 1994. Hence his legal representatives were added. M.P.No.587 of 1995 was filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for direction to deposit the rents from 1. 1994 to 37. 1995. The order was passed in the said M.P. directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,275. On 12. 96, the amount was deposited. However, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.892 of 1996. Once again the land lord/respondent herein filed M.P.No.1049 of 1996 under Section 11(4) of the Act. On 14. 1997 an ex pane order was passed to deposit the amount within a short date. As the amo unts were not deposited, an order was passed in the petition allowing it and consequently eviction was ordered. It is needless to point out the proceedings in R.C.A was also stopped and the eviction was ordered. Hence the petitioner has filed the two revision petitions challenging the two orders passed on 26. 1997 in the M.P.No.587 of 1995 well as in the R.’C.A.No.892 of 1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the scope of Section 11(4) of the Act is very much limited. It would appl y only to cases namely:

.(1) When the tenant has to contest the eviction petition before the Rent Controller filed under section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960).

.(2) When the petitioner has filed appeal as against the order passed under Section 10. Apart from these two contingencies in any other cases, there is no scope for applying for the provisions contained under Section 11(1). A reading of Section 11 is as follows:-

(1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the controller under that section or to prefer any appeal under Section 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 deposits, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be.

.(2) The deposit of rent under sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed.

.(3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1) the Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, on application made to him either by the tenant or by the landlord, and after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited.

.(4) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and mak