The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of establishing tenancy and complying with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, particularly in relation to the deposit of rent and the right to challenge subsequent orders.

1. This Civil Revisionhas been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 112. 2008 made in R.C.A. No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the order and decretal order, dated 112. 2006 made in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.

2. As per the impugned Judgment, dated 112. 2008 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, order and decretal order, dated 112. 2006 made in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller was confirmed and the Petitioner herein, who was the Appellant in the R.C.A. was directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the Petition premises to the Respondent/Landlord, within a period of one month from the date of the order and accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the Judgment, the Petitioner herein has preferred the Revision.

3. It is an admitted fact that the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2000 was filed by the Respondent/Landlord, against one S. Mohanraj and his brother Dillibabu, the Petitioner herein, seeking an order of eviction under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) & (b) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as “the Act”). When the R.C.O.P. was pending, the Respondent/Landlord filed M.P. No.9 of 2002 under Section 11(4) of the Act, seeking an order to direct the First Respondent/tenant therein to pay the arrears of rent from June 2001 onwards at the rate of Rs.700/- per month within the date to be fixed by the learned Rent Controller and in default of compliance, to stop all further proceedings in the R.C.O.P. and to direct the Respondents therein to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the Landlord. According to the Respondent/Landlord, the Revision Petitioner herein was only an unauthorised sub-tenant inducted by the tenant, Mohanraj, the First Respondent in the R.C.O.P. There is a concurrent finding by the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the Petitioner is not the tenant under the Respondent/Landlord, but that was not challenged by the Petitioner by way of Revision.

4. As per the order, dated 29.09.2003, learned Rent Controller directed the Respondent/tenant to pay the arrears of rent from June 2001 at the rate of Rs.700/- per month within a period of one moth from the date of the order and in default to vacate and hand over the premises to the Landlord, who is the Respondent herein. The First Respondent/tenant has not complied with the conditional order passed under Section 11(4) of the Act.

5. However, the Revision Petitioner, who was the Second Respondent in the R.C.O.P, filed a Petition in M.P. No.8 of 2002 in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000, seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent into the Court under Section 8(2) of the Act, but he was not permitted by the learned Rent Controller, on the ground he was not the tenant of the rental premises. In the R.C.O.P itself, the Respondent/Landlord has specifically stated in paragraph number 7, that only Mohanraj, the First Respondent therein was the tenant and he shifted his residence to Thirukazhukundram, another place and the rented premises was sub-let by him to his brother, the Petitioner herein, to carry on beedi business, contrary to the terms of the lease agreement, without the consent of the Landlord.

6. In the counter filed in M.P. No.8 of 2002, the Respondent/Landlord has specifically stated that the Petitioner, who is not the tenant under the Respondent/Landlord was not entitled to deposit the arrears of rent, as per the order passed by the Rent Control Court, under Section 11(4) of the Act. Admittedly, the Petitioners herein has not challenged the order with supporting documents to establish his claim as tenant.

7. It is not in dispute that Miscellaneous Petition filed in M.P. No.8 of 2002 by the Petitioner herein, seeking per