Extention of time can be granted by Appellate Court.

The tenant is the petitioner herein. The landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and owner’s occupation under Secs. 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and by Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). During the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord filed a petition under Sec. 11 (4) of the Act to collect the arrears of rent payable by the tenant, amounting to Rs.21,000 from June, 1991 to December, 1991. The tenant filed a counter alleging that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition. The tenant also submitted that he was depositing the rent in the bank as per the passbook issued by the bank. Such deposit was made in his own name. According to the tenant, he need not pay the rent to the landlord since the petition premises was purchased by him and the landlord together on 22. 1981. According to the tenant, the landlord also filed a suit O.S.No.722 of 1992 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Madras. Therefore, it was submitted that the petition M.P.No.422 of 1992 filed under Sec.11(4) of the Act is liable to be dismissed. In the petition filed under Sec.11(4) of the Act, the Rent Controller passed an order dated 29. 1992 directing the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.21,000 on or before 110. 1992. The petition was posted for hearing on 110. 1992. Thereafter, the tenant sought for extension of time for depositing the rent. Accordingly, time was extended till 210. 1992 and the petition was posted for hearing on 210. 1992. In the meanwhile the tenant filed an appeal against the order passed in M.P.No.442 of 1992 in R.C.A.N’o.1107 of 1992 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In the said appeal, the tenant obtained an order of interim slay, The tenant also deposited a sum of Rs.48,(XX) towards the arrears of rent upto September, 1992 on 211. 1992. In the appeal the tenant filed M.P.No.l137of 1993 for permission to file additional documents. After September, 1992 according to the landlord the tenant has not paid the rent. On 212. 1992 the tenant filed M.P.Nos.23 and 24 of 1993 for permission to deposit future rents. But these petitions were allowed to be dismissed by default. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is against that order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenant.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ tenant submitted as under: The petitioner herein is the co-owner along with respondent herein with regard to the petition premises. Therefore, he is not liable to pay the rent to the respondent. Rs.3,000 per month was paid not towards the rent for the petition period, but it was paid towards the interest due on the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 borrowed by the petitioner herein. Since there is bona fide dispute between the petitioner and the respondent herein over the title to the petition premises, the petitioner herein cannot be asked to pay the rent to the respondent. The authorities below failed to render a considered order even though the petitioner herein alleged that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent herein. The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.6689 of 1993 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for a declaration that the decree obtained by the respondent herein in O.S.No.7830 of 1983 is not binding upon him and also to set aside the execution proceedings laid on the basis of the decree obtained in O.S.No.7830 of 1983. When there is bona fide dispute between the parties over the title to the petition premises the Rent Controller ought to have relegated this matter to a civil court for proper adjudication. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner herein is the tenant and the respond