ORDER This is a civil revision petition against an order of the Appellate Authority, confirming an order of the learned Rent Controller, Karaikal, evicting the revision-petitioner, who is in occupation of the premises belonging to Sri Kailasanathaswami Sri Nithyakalyana Perumal Devasthanam, as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/- per month after depositing a sum of Rs. 4,000 which is liable to be refunded at the time when he vacates the premises. He did not pay the rent for the period from October, 1973 to September, 1979. The arrears amounted to Rs. 355-75. Repeated demands for payment of arrears of rent by the landlord, viz., the Executive Officer of the aforesaid Devasthanam, were not complied with by the tenant and, therefore, the petition was filed for eviction. The tenant contended that he has spent about Rs. 287 and odd to carry out repairs and Rs. 500 to instal electric fitting in the building with the consent of the landlord and that he is entitled to adjust this amount. The learned Rent Controller rejected this contention of the tenant and found that he has committed wilful default and directed his eviction. An appeal was preferred before the learned Subordinate Judge, as the Appellate Authority and was dismissed by him. 2. The contention of the tenant now is that he is entitled to adjust the aforesaid amounts spent by him in order to effect repairs to the house and instal electric fittings. This contention is not open to him because there is no such agreement in writing. It is contended by the learned counsel for the tenant that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal in view of the provisions of section 17 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) (Amendment) Act, 1980, by which section 23 of the principal Act was amended, substituting for sub-section (1) of section 23 of the principal Act, the following sub-section, viz.: — “(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within 15 days from the date of such order, excluding the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order, file an appeal in writing to the District Court. (2) In sub-sections (2) and (3), for the words ‘appellate authority’ wherever it occurs, the words ‘District Court’ shall be substituted.” After the Act was amended as aforesaid, it was incumbent on the part of the revision-petitioner to more the District Court to withdraw the appeal pending on the file of the Sub-Court to its own file and dispose of the same, or move the Sub-Court to transfer the case to the file of the District Court. It was the revision petitioner himself who chose to file, or at least continue the appeal in a wrong forum and it is not now open to him to rely on his own lapses and laches to con end that the order is non est and, therefore he is entitled to file a revision against the same. If the order of the Appellate Authority is treated as non est or passed without jurisdiction, then, the order of the learned Rent Controller will stand and, therefore, the revision-petitioner is liable to be evicted, as he deserves to be. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. R.S. ----- Petition allowed.