The tenant's issues could only be agitated if an appeal was filed against the eviction order. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 152 of C.P.C. and the correctness of the property description in the eviction order.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the order dated 30.04.2011, passed in R.C.A.Nos.66 of 2010 and 68 of 2009, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority for Rent Controller), Madurai.

2. The petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. is a tenant, whereas the respondents are the landlords in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Madurai.

3. The landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008 for eviction of the petitioner herein. The R.C.O.P. was posted for trial. After recording evidence and conclusion of arguments on behalf of the respondents, the R.C.O.P. was posted for the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, on 06.11.2009. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a Memo of Notice, dated 27.10.2009, seeking for a direction to the respondents to produce the original sale deed, dated 27.04.2006. The respondents filed objections stating that the original sale deed is deposited with the Bank and amounts were borrowed to construct a hospital building. Accepting the objections filed by the respondents, the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the said Memo of Notice, to produce the documents, on 06.11.2009. On the same day, the R.C.O.P. was allowed ordering eviction of petitioner and two months time was granted for delivery of possession to the respondents. Against the said order, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.68 of 2009. The petitioner obtained a copy of the order, dated 06.11.2009, made in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008. In the said order furnished to the petitioner, the name of the second respondent was not incorporated. Further, according to the petitioner, the description of the property was wrongly mentioned. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.354 of 2009, to amend the order, dated 06.11.2009, made in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008, to incorporate the second respondent's name and to mention the correct description of the property. The learned Rent Controller held that any mistake in the order dated 06.11.2009, can be corrected as per Section 152 of C.P.C., but dismissed the Interlocutory Application on the ground that the entire records of the R.C.O.P. was sent to the Appellate Court, as the petitioner has filed R.C.A.No.68 of 2009. Against the said order, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.66 of 2010. The learned appellate Judge considered both the appeals and passed a common order, on 30.04.2011. By the said common order, the appellate Judge, dismissed R.C.A.No.68 of 2009 on the ground that the issue raised by the petitioner can only be agitated and decided if the appeal was filed against the order, dated 06.11.2009, made in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008, ordering eviction of the petitioner. As no R.C.O.P. is pending against the order of eviction of petitioner, the R.C.A. is not maintainable.

4. As far as R.C.A.No.66 of 2010 is concerned, the appellate Judge allowed the said appeal partly holding that the name of the second respondent has been omitted accidentally and therefore, the mistake has to be corrected by incorporating the name of the second respondent. As far as the correction of description of property is concerned, the learned Judge dismissed the said request on the ground that the property is correctly described in the order. Against the said order, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petitions.

5. Heard Mr. T.R. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Judge ought to have allowed the Memo of Notice filed by the petitioner and ought to have direct the respondents to produce the original sale deed, dated 27.04.2006. As far as the Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A.No.66 of 2010 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the description of property differs from the description of property in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008 and the order, dated 06.11.2009. The learned