Judgment :- 1. The landlady filed petitions for eviction against five tenants on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller ordered eviction in the case of all the five tenants. All the five tenants preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The tenants also filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions for stay of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. While admitting the appeals, the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted stay of eviction order in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, on condition that the tenants should deposit the arrears of rent, failing which the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordered that the stay granted snail stand vacated. According to the landlady, the tenants deposited rent upto March 1984 and they did not deposit the rent for the subsequent periods. Therefore, according to the landlady, the tenants are in arrears of rent from April 1984 till the date of filing of the petitions under S. 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Thus, according to the landlady, five months rent is payable in the case of each of the tenant. The petitions filed under S. 11(4) of the Act was contested by the tenants. According to the tenants, they have paid the house tax for the petition premises and the same is adjustable towards arrears of rent. This plea was not accepted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Thus, invoking the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority vacated the stay granted in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and dismissed the appeals filed by the tenants. It is against these orders, the tenants are in revision before this court. Each tenant filed two revisions. One against the order passed in the petition filed under S. 11(4) of the Act and another against the order passed in the main appeal. Thus, there are ten revisions filed before this court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants submitted as under:— The Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in in-yoking the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act. When the Rent Control Appellate Authority invoked the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act, the Authority ought to have given sufficient time for the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent, if any. When the Rent Control Appellate Authority invoked the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act, the Authority ought to have given sufficient time for the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent, if any. If such arrears, as directed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not deposited, then it is open to the Rent Control Appellate Authority to terminate proceedings, as contemplated under S. 11(4) of the Act. In the instant case, no such opportunity was given to the tenants. Therefore, the orders passed under S. 11(4) of the Act are not sustainable. It is the case of the tenants that they have paid the house tax, which the landlady failed to pay and therefore the amounts paid by way of house tax are adjustable towards the arrears of rent. If such adjustment is made, there would not be any arrears of rent payable by the tenants. In order to support her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in John v. Brumgar (1985 II MLJ 357). Therefore, according to the learned counsel, since no time was granted to deposit the arrears of rent, as per the provisions of S. 11(2) of the Act, and since the tenants paid the house tax, it is adjustable towards the arrears of rent, and provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act cannot be invoked and the appeals filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority cannot be dismissed. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent landlady submitted as under:— The tenants are chronic defaulters in payment of rent. They failed to pay the rent for the petition premises for the petition period. Hence petitions for eviction were filed under S. 10(2)(i) of the Act. Even before the Rent Controller, the tenants have not paid the rent. The Rent Controller, therefore ordered eviction in each of the tenants case. Aggrieved by that order, the tenants filed appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. They nave also filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions for stay of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Control Appellate Authority granted stay on condition that the tenants should deposit the arrears of rent, failing which the order of stay was directed to be vacated. The tenants deposited the rent upto March, 1984. They nave also filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions for stay of eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Control Appellate Authority granted stay on condition that the tenants should deposit the arrears of rent, failing which the order of stay was directed to be vacated. The tenants deposited the rent upto March, 1984. From April, 1984, till the date of filing petitions under S. 11(4) of the Act, they have not deposited the rent. Therefore, petitions under S. 11(4) of the Act is maintainable. The Appeals filed by the tenants are not maintainable, without depositing the arrears of rent, as per the provisions of S. 11(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, after it came to know of the fact that the tenants are in arrears of rent, directed them to deposit the same in court. They have not done so. Therefore, S. 11(4) of the Act is applicable to the facts of this case. It is not correct on the part of the tenants to say that after ascertaining the arrears of rent, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not given any time for depositing the rent. There is no demand from the Municipal Authorities for payment of tax by the tenants. They art not entitled to pay the Municipal Tax unilaterally. When the Rent Control Appellate Authority specifically directed them to deposit the rent in court, they have no business to pay the house tax. Even the alleged tax said to have been paid by them is not sufficient to meet the arrears of rent payable by them for the period of five months. Therefore it was pleaded that the Rent Control Appellate Authority was correct in terminating the proceedings under S. 11(4) of the Act and ordering eviction in the appeals. 4. I have heard the rival submissions. The fact remains that five tenants are in the petition premises. Each tenant in paying rent Rs. 75/- per month. Since the tenants have failed and neglected to pay the rent, the landlady filed petitions for eviction under S. 10(2)(1) of the Act. Even during the pendency of the eviction petitions, the rent was not paid regularly. The Rent Controller, after contest, ordered eviction under S. 10(2)(i) of the Act in the case of each of the tenant. The tenants preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Even during the pendency of the eviction petitions, the rent was not paid regularly. The Rent Controller, after contest, ordered eviction under S. 10(2)(i) of the Act in the case of each of the tenant. The tenants preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. They have also filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions for stay of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Control Appellate Authority granted stay, on condition that the tenants should deposit the arrears of rent in court. The tenants deposited the rent till March, 1984. From April 1984, they have not deposited the rent. Since they have not deposited the rent for the period of five months, the landlady filed petitions under S. 11 (4) of the Act. 5. The learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the tenants have paid the house tax to the Municipal Authorities, since the landlady failed to pay the same such payments of tax are adjustable in the arrears of rent. If such adjustment is made, there will be no arrears of rent in the case of such of the tenant. It remains to be seen that after the petition for eviction was filed, there cannot be any contract between the landlady and the tenants for payments of house tax by the tenants. There is also no evidence to show that the Municipal Authorities demanded the house tax from the tenants. When the Rent Control Appellate Authority specifically directed them to deposit the arrears of rent in court, the tenants have no business to pay the house tax and plead for adjustment of the same in the arrears of rent. According to the landlady, five months rent amounting to Rs. 375/- in the case of each of the tenant was not deposited in court, after the Rent Control Appellate Authority directed them to do so. There is no evidence on record to show that each of the tenant paid a sum of Rs. 375/- by way of tax to the Municipal Authorities. Therefore, even after payment of house tax, still there would be some balance of amount payable towards arrears of rent. Therefore, this plea of the tenants that they have paid the house tax and the same is adjustable towards the arrears of rent, cannot be accepted. 6. 375/- by way of tax to the Municipal Authorities. Therefore, even after payment of house tax, still there would be some balance of amount payable towards arrears of rent. Therefore, this plea of the tenants that they have paid the house tax and the same is adjustable towards the arrears of rent, cannot be accepted. 6. The counsel for the tenants submitted that before passing an order under S. 11(4) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority must give time to the tenants for depositing the arrears of rent. In the present case, according to the learned counsel, no such time was given by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It remains to be seen that under S. 11(1) of the Act, the Rent Control Appeals are not maintainable, before depositing the arrears of rent. The tenants should not only deposit the arrears of rent before filing of the appeals, but also continue to pay the rent regularly during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. Under S. 11(2) of the Act, the deposit of rent under sub-S. (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed. If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent, as aforesaid, the Appellate Authority shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order, directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, as per the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act. 7. In the present case, the tenants committed wilful default and hence the petitions for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent were filed. The Rent Controller ordered eviction in each of the case of the tenants. Before filing the Rent Control Appeals, the tenants have not deposited the arrears, of rent, till the date of filing of the appeals. When the tenants came forward with petitions for stay of order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted stay, on condition that the tenants should deposit the arrears of rent in court. With regard to the rate of rent, there is no dispute. In furtherance of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenants deposited the rent till March, 1984. From April, 1984, for the period of five months, the tenants failed to deposit the rent in court. With regard to the rate of rent, there is no dispute. In furtherance of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenants deposited the rent till March, 1984. From April, 1984, for the period of five months, the tenants failed to deposit the rent in court. The landlady came forward with the petition filed under S. 11(4) of the Act the tenants filed counters and contested such petitions filed by the landlady. After contest, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the tenants failed to deposit the rent in court, as directed by him. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority complied with the provisions contained under S. 11(2) of the Act, before invoking the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act. In fact, according to S. 11(1) of the Act, no appeal is entertainable before the deposit of arrears of rent is made. By passing an order S. 11(4) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority terminated the proceedings and dismissed the appeals filed by the tenant. A careful consideration of the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority will go to show that the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under S. 11(4) of the Act and dismissing the appeals filed by the tenants, appears to be in order. In (1985 II MLJ 357), in the case of A. John v. Bhumgara while considering the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act, this court field as under:— “When the tenant admits that he is in arrears of rent, though not to the extent claimed by the landlord, he is bound to deposit into court or pay the admitted arrears, if he wants to contest the claim as laid down under S. 11(1) of the Act. Any default on the part of the tenant to pay or deposit the admitted arrears automatically attracts the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act and disentitles him to contest the action and the Court in bound to pass an order directing him to vacate the premises and put the landlord in possession.” 8. Any default on the part of the tenant to pay or deposit the admitted arrears automatically attracts the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act and disentitles him to contest the action and the Court in bound to pass an order directing him to vacate the premises and put the landlord in possession.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in C.R.P. 1450/92, dated 11.8.92 in the case of Velusamy v. A. Jamesha and others, wherein this court held that before invoking the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority should give sufficient time to the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent, as otherwise the order passed under S. 11(4) is unsustainable. The facts arising in the instant cases are different from the facts arising in the above said decision. In the instant cases, the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted sufficient time to the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent. In fact, the appeals were filed without depositing the arrears of rent, even though the order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller under S. 10 (2)(i) of the Act. Even after the time was granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenants failed and neglected to deposit the rent in court and therefore they are rendering themselves liable to be evicted. For the foregoing reasons, the abovesaid decisions cited by the learned counsel for the tenants, would not render any assistance to the tenants to advance their cases. 9. Considering the facts arising in these, cases in the light of the decisions cited supra, I hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the petitions filed under S. 11(4) of the Act and in the appeals filed by the tenants. Thus, there is no merit in these revision petitions. Accordingly, these revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Time for eviction two months.