Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner/tenant has filed these revision petitions aggrieved against the order passed in R.C.A.Nos.108, 109 and 110 of 1993 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Madurai. The respondents/landlords filed an application for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for a period of eight months i.e., October, 91 to May, 1992 at the rate of Rs.1,300 per month. The landlords filed I.A.No.52 of 1993 under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rent Control Act’) to direct the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as on date. The trial court passed an order on 6.7.1993 directing the petitioner to deposit the amount, since no counter was filed. The hearing date was fixed by 23.7.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.281 of 1993 to extend the time for depositing the amount by one month. The said I.A.No.281 of 1993 was dismissed after hearing the parties on 13.8.1993 and consequentialy final order was also passed in I.A.No.52 of 1993 as well as an order of eviction was passed in R.C.O.P.No.330 of 1992. Aggrieved against this order, the tenant/petitioner preferred R.C.A.Nos.108 to 110 of 1993 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai and deposited the arrears as on date. But, however, all these appeals were dismissed and aggrieved against this, the present revision petitions are filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that I.A.No.52 of 1993 was filed on 1.2.1993 and as counter was not filed till 6.7.1993, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.22,100 representing the arrears for a period of 17 months. The petitioner, no doubt, filed I.A.No.281 of 1993 for extension of time by one month on the ground that he was engaged in forming a Teacher Training Institute in Manamadurai in September, 1992 onwards and, hence, he could not contact the lawyer and file any counter to the petition under Sec.11(4) of the Rent Control Act filed by the respondents herein. He could not also deposit a sum of Rs.22,100 in a single stretch. 4. It is necessary to state that the main rent control petition itself was filed in 1992, seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. He could not also deposit a sum of Rs.22,100 in a single stretch. 4. It is necessary to state that the main rent control petition itself was filed in 1992, seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. Now, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has no funds to pay the same in one Iumpsum. Even according to the affidavit, he was arranging to start another institution in a different place, thereby indicating that he is a financially sound person. This being so, the non-payment of rent on the part of the petitioner will naturally amount to wilful default. The contention of the petitioner that now the rent has been deposited in the appellate court is not at all a ground to be considered. It is seen from the records that although the applications under Sec.11(4) of the Rent Control Act as filed in February, 1993 and nearly five months time was given for the purpose of filing counter but the matter has been to him. It is only under these circumstances, both the authorities below came to the conclusion that the petitioner/tenant has failed to comply with the order passed by the rent controller and also failed to deposit the arrears of rent and, hence, there is no other go except to pass an order of eviction and, ultimately, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, seeking extention of time. I am of the view that the order passed by the authorities below is proper and correct and no interference is called for. 5. For the reasons stated above, all the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed and, accordingly, they are dismissed. It is stated that the petitioner is running a school in the premises and, as such, the academic year will come to an end by the end of April and, as such, the petitioner is granted four months’ time to vacate on condition that he should file an affidavit of undertaking that he would vacate and deliver possession within a period of four months. The affidavit should be filed within a period of ten days from this date. It is also made clear that the petitioner should pay the made clear that the petitioner should pay the rent regularly during the said period. Consequently, C.M.P.No.19519 of 1998 is also dismissed.