ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.10.2019 passed in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge, Erode) reversing the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018 dated 15.03.2019 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Erode).

2. The brief facts of the case in the nutshell are as follows:-

The respondent, who is the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018 is the tenant and the petitioners, who are the respondents in the said petition are the landlords. The said petition was filed to permit the respondent/petitioner to deposit the rent amount at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month for the period between June 2018 and July 2018 and also to deposit future rent to the court, on the ground that the petitioners refused to receive the amount and hence, the rent was sent through money order and again, the same was also returned. The petitioners/respondents resisted the same by way of filing a counter. The said petition was dismissed. As against the same, the respondent/tenant, preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 and counter was filed by the petitioners, the said appeal was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by reversing the finding in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners/landlord have filed the present Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/landlord submits that the respondent/tenant sent the rent for the month of June 2018 at the rate of Rs.12,000/- to the petitioners. Since the respondent/tenant agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/-, the petitioners did not receive the same. Thereafter, the respondent/tenant did not come forward to pay the agreed enhanced rent and if the respondent has sent the enhanced rent of Rs.20,000/-, the petitioners would not have returned the money order. The sole intention of the respondent is to continue the tenancy at the rate of Rs.12,000/- only, for which the respondent is not entitled to. Since the procedures enumerated under Sections 8(1) to 8(4) of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act has not been followed, the court below dismissed the said petition. As against the same, the respondents/landlord preferred an appeal, in the said appeal, the appellate authority held that deliberately the bank account particulars is not given by the landlord, hence allowed the said appeal. As against the same, this present petition has been preferred, thereby pleaded to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 (4) CTC 72 [E.Palanisamy Vs. Palanisamy (D) by Lrs. And others and the Order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1006 of 2020 [S.Kalaimani and another Vs. A.Mohaideen].

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant submitted that the petition mentioned property is a shop and took on lease on 01.06.1976 and running coffee works shop. When the respondent tried to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the petitioners towards rent for the month of June, 2018, the petitioners refused to receive the same and therefore, sent the same through money order and the same was returned. The appellate authority has rightly held that the bank particulars was deliberately not given by the petitioners/landlord and the same being admitted in the counter by the petitioners themselves, the appellate authority has rightly allowed the prayer sought for by the respondent, which require no interference, thereby sought to dismiss the present petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the order of this Court.

7. At this juncture, it is useful to refer Section 8(2) to 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, [for brevity, hereinafte