Judgment : 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus direct the first respondent to prescribe the Authority to whom deposit of rents has to be made under section 9 (3), of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 2. According to the petitioners they are tenants in the premises No.54, Sudiamman Pet Street, Saidapet, Madras-15 paying monthly rent of Rs.70, Rs.110 and Rs.120 respectively. The tenancy of all the petitioners are residential and calculated according to English calendar month. It is stated that the third respondent was collecting rent from the petitioners and other tenants. The third respondent was not in the habit of issuing receipts for the payment of rent and no receipt was also issued for the payment of advance. The petitioners paid rents regularly till the end of August, 1988 to the third respondent. At this juncture the second respondent issued a notice and demanded payment of rent from the petitioners and other tenants claiming that her husband Late Kanniah Naidu had purchased the property at No. 54, Sudiamman Pet Street, Madras15 and after the death of her husband according to the second respondent herself and her daughters were entitled for the rents. She also informed that she has obtained stay in Second Appeal No.683 of 1987 against the respondents 3 to 6 and demanded payment of rent, failing which she threatened to initiate eviction proceedings against the petitioners and other tenants. In such circumstances the petitioners were forced file R.C.O. No.3207, 3208 and 3209 of 1988 on the file of the XI Small Causes Court, Madras, since the petitioners were under the bona fide doubt as to the person who is entitled to receive the rent in respect of the huts occupied by them. As already stated, according to them the dispute between the second respondent and respondents 3 to 6 with regard to right to collect rents from the petitioners has not been settled so far. 3. It is further stated that learned XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras dismissed all the above said R.C.O.Ps., on a technical ground that the said petitions are not maintainable as no authority contemplated under Section 9 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been prescribed so as to enable the tenant to deposit. The learned Rent Controller followed the dictum of this Court rendered in C.R.P. No.2338 of 1979 dated 30.6.1981 reported in Abdul Majeeth v. Masiammal, 1981 T.L.N.J. 315. In view of the above position the petitioners are unable to deposit the rent as contemplated under section 9 (3) of the Act. Since the Rent Control Act is a self contained Act, the provisions of C.P.C. has no application for matters governed by this Act. The first respondent which is the rule-making authority under Section 34, has not prescribed the Authority contemplated under Section 9 (3) of the Act to receive the deposit as per Section 9. In these circumstances, having no other remedy the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. The contesting first respondent though duly served as early as on 21. 1990 has not chosen to file counter affidavit informing the present position with reference to the relief sought for by the petitioners. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as respondents. 6. There is no dispute that all the petitioners are tenants and according to them there is a bona fide dispute with regard to ownership of the premises in question. In such circumstances they filed necessary applications under Section 9 (3) of the Act for seeking permission to deposit rents in respect of the premises occupied by them. It is also clear from the proceedings that there is a dispute between the second respondent and respondents 3 to 6 with regard to right to collect rents from the petitioners. Since no Authority as contemplated under section 9 (3) of the Act has been prescribed the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes had dismissed all the said R.C.O.Ps., filed by the petitioners. In this regard it is relevant to note section 9 (3) of the Act: "9. Since no Authority as contemplated under section 9 (3) of the Act has been prescribed the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes had dismissed all the said R.C.O.Ps., filed by the petitioners. In this regard it is relevant to note section 9 (3) of the Act: "9. right of tenant to deposit rent in Certain Cases:- 1) 2) 3) where any bona fide doubt or dispute arises as to the person who is entitled to receive the rent for any building, the tenant may deposit such rent before such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall report to the Controller the circumstances under which such deposit was made by him, and may continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building before the same authority and in the same manner until the doubt is removed or the dispute is settled by the decision of a competent Court or by a settlement between the parties or until the Controller makes an order under clause (b) of sub-section (4), as the case may be. The reading of the above sub-section (3) makes it clear that there are two forums viz., (i) The Authority before whom the rent has to be deposited; and (ii) The controller to whom the report of such deposit has to be made. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this distinction is further strengthened by sub- section (4) of section 9. There is no dispute that under section 34 of the Act, Government is competent to prescribe the Authority and the procedure for depositing the rents before the said Authority. 7. In this regard, it is brought to my notice a decision of Sengottuvelan, J., reported in Abdul Majeeth v. Masiammal, 1981 T.L.N.J. 315. In a similar circumstances, the learned Judge has observed. "The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contends that section 9 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which provides for deposit of rent in case of dispute regarding title, contemplates deposit of rent to such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed and that nowhere in the Act or Rules made there ....under the authority to whom such deposit has to be made is prescribed. The learned advocate for the respondent argues that though such authority has not been prescribed under Section 9 (3) yet the tenant can deposit the rent under the provisions of the Civil Rules of Practice, since Rule 10 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules lays down that a tenant desirous of depositing the rent under Section 8 (5), 9 or 11 shall deposit the same in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Civil Rules of Practice and circular orders in regard to payment of money into Court. But the Civil Rules of Practices deals with the matter of depositing in a pending civil proceedings to the credit of the civil suit. But, here under section 9 (3) when the authority to whom the deposit has to be made is not prescribed, the tenant will not be in a position to make a deposit even as per Rule 10 read with 157 to 159, C.P.C. since even if the tenant makes a deposit the authorities concerned would be justified in asking the tenant under what provision of law such deposit is made. In view of the wording of section 9 (3) if the authority to be prescribed under section 9 (3) is named, then such a deposit can as well as be entertained under Rule 10 and Rules 157 to 159 of the Civil Rules of Practice. In the absence of naming such an authority the abovesaid rules will not help the tenant in the matter of making deposit. In the present case, it is seen that after the death of the landlord who had leased the premises on behalf of his family, there was dispute between the members of family and such a dispute is not denied. In view of such a dispute, after the death of the landlord as to who is entitled to the property, the tenant can only seek to deposit the rent under section 9 (3). Since no authority has been prescribed as stated under Section 9 (3), the tenant immediately on the filing eviction petition against him, had deposited the entire arrears into court and hence the tenant cannot be said to have committed any wilful default in the payment of rent, since no authority had been prescribed before whom he can deposit the rent under section 9 (3). Though both the courts below have given the concurrent findings on the question of wilful default, the above aspect has not been considered by both the courts. Under the circumstances, this is a fit case where the conclusion arrived at by the courts below will have to be set aside. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The said decision of the learned Judge supports the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that Authority has been notified as per section 9 (3) by the first respondent. After accepting that there is no Authority in terms of section 9 (3), the learned Government Advocate has contended that by virtue of the procedures laid down in the Civil Rules of Practice and various circular orders in payment of money into court, there is no difficulty for the tenants/petitioners herein to deposit the same by availing such procedure. 8. In the absence of any Authority prescribed by the first respondent with regard to deposit of rents as per section 9 (3) of the Act and in the light of the earlier decision of this Court referred to above, I am constrained to accept the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to prescribe the Authority to whom the deposit of rents has to be made under section 9 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, expeditiously. Inasmuch as absence of such Authority is a lacuna, this court hopes that the Government will come forward with necessary notification as early as possible.