The Rent Controller has no discretion to condone the default and extend the time for payment of arrears of rent under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

This revision petition is at the instance of the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed. The respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 1413/86 For eviction under S. 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, on the ground that the petitioner has committed acts of waste which are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the premises let. The respondent filed an application under S. 11 of the Act in M.P. No. 1414/of 1986. That was contested by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that what was leased to him was only the land and not the building and the provisions of the Act would not apply. According to him, even the petition for eviction was not maintainable. In the petition under S.ll also he raised the same dispute.

There was no dispute with regard to the rent payable by the petitioner to the respondent. Nor was there any dispute as regard the quantum of arrears at the time when the application under S.ll of the Act was filed. What happened was that the petitioner was sending rent by money order showing it as rent for land. The respondent had refused to receive the same as he had shown it as rent for land. According to the respondent, what was let out was only the building.

2. By order dated 31-3-1987, the Rent Con troller held that the petitioner was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and he should deposit in the court on or before 6.4.87 the entire arrears due as on that date. It should be mentioned at this stage that when the petition was being heard by the Rent Controller, both parties filed number of documents in support of their respective con tentions in the main case. The respondent filed as many as 13 documents and the petitioner filed two documents.

3. Against the order dated 31.3.1987, the petitioner filed an appeal under S. 23 of the Act before the Appellate Authority which was taken on file as RCA No. 283/87. He applied for stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the order of the Rent Controller and interim stay was granted in his favour. On 28.4.1987, the petitioner paid the arrears of the rent to the respondent through his counsel by demand draft. However, the appeal was heard (sic) and on 18.4.1988 it was dismissed on merits. The Appellate authority had written a detailed order dismissing the appeal. In his judgment, the appellate authority had considered the documents produced by both parties and expressed opinion that the case of the petitioner that the subject matter of the lease was only the land was not acceptable. The appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Controller.

4. Challenging the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 536/89 in this court. While the C.R.P. was pending, the Rent Controller passed a final order under S.ll(4) of the Act, stopping further proceedings in the evic tion proceedings and directing the tenant to deliver possession to the landlord. That order was passed on the basis that the petitioner herein had not complied with the order dated 31.3.1987 directing him to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 6.4.1987.

5. When the civil revision petition was heard, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the the payment of entire arrears of rent on 28.4.1987 ought to have been taken into account by the appellate authority or the Rent Controller and finally, the order of eviction ought not to have been passed. This Court dismissed the Civil revision petition with the following observation:

“On a careful consideration of the order of the learned Rent controller and that of the appellate authority, it is seen that those authorities have rightly directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent and also the future rents. There is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the authorities below meriting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent