Maintainability of revision petition after dismissal of appeal.

The tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), who is respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3598 of 1985 filed by the 1st respondent-Original landlord for eviction is the revision petitioner. Respondents 2 and 3 herein are subsequent purchasers of the same building from the 1st respondent.

2. In the abovesaid rent control original petition, the petitioner herein was set ex parte by order dated 22. 1986 and so he filed M.P.No.245 of 1986 to set aside the said order. No doubt in the said miscellaneous petition, an endorsement was made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent on 23. 1986 as follows:

"The respondent Mathuram Perumal is not filing any counter. Petition may be allowed and the main RCOP may be posted in the list, as the arrears of rent accumulates further".

3. However, the Rent Controller has allowed the said miscellaneous petition only on condition that the 1st respondent pays a sum of Rs.25 on or before 4. 1986. The said conditional order was passed on 20.3.1986 and the order runs as follows:

"In view of the endorsement of the other side counsel the petition will be allowed on payment of Rs.25 on or before 4. 1986 failing which the petition will be dismissed. Call on 4. 1986".

Thus, even here it may be noted that even though as per the endorsement the petition may be allowed without stipulating anything regarding payment of costs, the learned Rent Controller has only passed a conditional order stipulating that Rs.25 has to be paid before the stipulated date as condition for allowing the said petition.

4. Then on 4. 1986 the miscellaneous petition was called and since the said sum of Rs.25 was not paid by then, the consequential order of dismissal of the said petition was passed.

.5. The petitioner has subsequently filed R.C.A.No.498 of 1986 as against the abovesaid dismissal order dated 4. 1986 only, and not against the initial conditional order dated 20.3.1986. The said rent control appeal was dismissed and so the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

6. Now, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the civil revision petition itself is not maintainable since the abovesaid rent control appeal itself is not maintainable against the order dated 4. 1986, since, if at all a rent control appeal could be filed only against the order dated 20.3.1986. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that pursuant to Sec.23 of the Act, every order is appeal-able and the order dated 4. 1986 also affects the rights of the petitioner and hence it is appealable. No doubt he also points out on the merits of the case that the Appellate Authority wrongly stated that the abovesaid endorsement was made with a stipulation regarding payment of cost, though actually it is not so. No doubt this latter contention of the said counsel on merits, is correct the endorsement does not at all stipulate payment of cost.

7. But only if the abovesaid rent control appeal and, consequently, the present civil revision petition are maintainable, the petitioner could go into the merits of this civil revision petition. So, the first point to be considered is whether the rent control appeal and the civil revision petition are maintainable at all. If the rent control appeal is not maintainable, consequently, the civil revision petition is also not maintainable.

.8. So, let me now see whether the rent control appeal is maintainable. In Ramayya v. Laksh-mayya, (1944)1 M.L.J. 381.A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 383: I.L.R 1945 Mad. 203: 57 L.W. 292:1944 M.W.N. 296, a Division Bench of this Court has held in the context of O.9. Rule 13, C.P.C., that where a conditional order allowing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree is passed on a particular date and on the applicant’s failure to fulfil the condition, consequently, an order later on, is passed dismissing the application, actually there is only one order in law, though the court might have chosen to pa