The failure to seek stay of fair rent orders indicates a willingness to comply or no objection to execution, and an appeal does not automatically stay proceedings unless specifically ordered by the Appellate Court.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

2. Heard Mr.ARL.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Balachander, learned counsel for the respondents

3. The respondents filed RCOP No.311 of 2006 on the file of the XI Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Controller) against the first petitioner herein under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, contending that the petitioner was guilty of willful default in payment of the difference between the fair rent fixed by the Court and the contractual rent. The defence taken by the first petitioner was that the fixation of fair rent by two Courts had not attained finality, in view of the pendency of a revision petition.

4. After considering all the contentions raised on both sides, the Rent Controller passed an order on 26.2.2007, directing eviction. The appeal filed by the first petitioner in RCA No.267 of 2007 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 24.4.2009. It is against these concurrent orders that the first petitioner filed the above revision. During the pendency of the revision, the first petitioner died and hence, the second petitioner is brought on record.

5. Though the facts narrated above would have been sufficient in any other case to dispose of the civil revision petition, the case on hand would not fall under the category of a normal variety. Therefore, a few more facts which may date back to antiquity and a few facts which have happened after the institution of the eviction proceedings may have to be taken note of and hence the list of events which have happened in the past about 23 years is narrated hereunder:-

(i) The respondents filed a petition for fixation of fair rent RCOP No.2480 of 1988. The contractual right of rent was Rs.1,000/- per month. The tenanted premises was land and building at new Door No.35, Anna Salai, Chennai-2, located in a land of an extent of about 2 grounds and 98 sq.ft. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent for the premises at Rs.31,591/- per month.

(ii) The first petitioner as well as the respondents filed appeals as against the order of the Rent Controller, in RCA Nos.627 and 716 of 2004 respectively. The Appellate Authority, by an order dated 26.4.2005, enhanced the fair rent to Rs.43,084/- payable as per the provisions of the Act, with effect from the date of the petition for fixation of fair rent viz., 1.9.1988.

(iii) Aggrieved by the fair rent so fixed by the Appellate Authority, the first petitioner/tenant filed two revision petitions in CRP NPD Nos.1657 and 1658 of 2005. These revision petitions were not accompanied by stay petitions. On 28.10.2005, while admitting the revision petitions, this Court passed the following order:-

"The revisions are admitted. The tenant/revision petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees eighty-five lakhs) as fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority at the rate of Rs.43,084/- per month, to the credit of RCOP No.2480 of 1988 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, on or before 31.1.2006.

On such deposit being made, the amount shall be invested in Indian Bank, Esplanade Branch, High Court Extension counter, Chennai-600 104, initially for a period of 3 years and shall be renewed periodically, till the disposal of the revisions."

(iv) As against that portion of the order which directed the petitioner to make a deposit of Rs.85 lakhs and which also directed the petitioner to deposit the fair rent fixed by the Court below, the petitioner filed the Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos.25728 and 25729 of 2005 on the file of the Supreme Court. I must take it that the Special Leave Petitions were not against the order admitting the revision petitions. But, by an order dated 3.1.2006, the Supreme