Judgment : The above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated: 22. 1996 made in R.C.A.No.20 of 1994 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner herein and confirming the fair and decretal order dated 211. 1993 made in R.C.O.P.No.33 of 1988 by the Rent Controller and the Court of District Munsif, Thanjavur. 2. The original petition filed by the landlord respondent herein before the Rent Controller and the Court of District Munsif, Thanjavur has been for the eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner from the subject matter under Secs.10(2) (i) and 14(1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 3. The contents of the petition are that on an oral agreement, the revision petitioner herein became the tenant of the subject matter, which is a residential building, on a meagre monthly rent of Rs.7, which on being enhanced from time to time has now became Rs.40 payable within 10th of every English calendar month; that since the revision petitioner herein sent the accumulated rent of five months covering the period of March, 1987 to July, 1987 on 8. 1987, it was not accepted by the respondent/landlord and issued the notice on 8. 1987 on ground of wilful default and on the further ground of demolition and reconstruction of the subject matter and thereafter filed the petition before the Rent Controller. 4. In the counter filed by the tenant/revision petitioner, the term of ‘lease’ and the ‘lease rent’ from the beginning till now have been admitted, but the wilful default in the payment of monthly rents has been denied. It is further contended that it was a deliberate act purposely perpetrated on the part of the landlord, in order to pave the way for eviction, in not accepting the rents for five months, when it was offered in person, as a result of which, the rent for five months had to be sent by money order on 8. 1987 and the same having been refused by the respondent/landlord got duly returned to the revision petitioner/tenant; that in spite of requesting the landlord to give the Bank Account number so as to deposit the rents in his favour without any hindrance, without giving the same, the landlord has tend to issue the eviction notice on 18. 1987 and the same having been refused by the respondent/landlord got duly returned to the revision petitioner/tenant; that in spite of requesting the landlord to give the Bank Account number so as to deposit the rents in his favour without any hindrance, without giving the same, the landlord has tend to issue the eviction notice on 18. 1987 and ever thereafter, on certain false pretexts, the landlord/respondent refused to receive the rent, as a result of which the rent was not able to be remitted in time and it is only on account of the non-co-operation exhibited on the part of the landlord, the default occurred and the same was neither wilful nor deliberate on the part of the revision petitioner and the other ground urged for demolition and reconstruction is only to sell the property in favour of third party for a good price and not on honest intentions and hence would pray the court to dismiss the application filed by the landlord. 5. During trial before the Rent Controller, the petitioner/landlord would examine himself as P.W.1 and would mark six documents as Exs.A-1 to A-6. But, on behalf of the respondent/tenant neither any witness got examined nor any document marked in support of his case. 6. In his oral evidence, the landlord, as P.W.1, would lay emphasis on the non-payment of the monthly rents by the tenant for a consecutive period of five months from March, 1987 to July, 1987 and would depose that when the accumulated rent for the five months had been sent by the tenant by money order, he rightly refused to receive the same. He would further confirm that on the other ground of demolition and reconstruction, he not only obtained the permission and blue print from the Thanjavur Municipality under Ex.A-4 dated 22. 1988 but also got it renewed under Exs.A-5 and A-6, dated 7. 1990 and 12. 1992 respectively; that Ex.A-1 is nothing but the legal notice issued by the tenant on 8. 1987 for which Ex.A-2 reply has been sent on 18. 1987 and Ex.A-3 is the postal acknowledgment dated 18. 1987. 7. 1988 but also got it renewed under Exs.A-5 and A-6, dated 7. 1990 and 12. 1992 respectively; that Ex.A-1 is nothing but the legal notice issued by the tenant on 8. 1987 for which Ex.A-2 reply has been sent on 18. 1987 and Ex.A-3 is the postal acknowledgment dated 18. 1987. 7. With the evidence placed on the part of the petitioner/landlord, before the Rent Controller, and since the oral and documentary evidence produced on the part of the respondent/tenant being nil, the Rent Controller, appreciating the available evidence one sided in the manner required had arrived at the conclusion to allow the petition filed by the landlord on both the grounds of wilful default in payment of monthly rents and on requirement of the premises by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction. 8. Aggrieved, the tenant has preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur in R.C.A.No.20 of 1994 and on hearing both sides, the Rent Control Appellate Authority too did not see any valid or tangible reason to interfere with the findings of the Rent Controller and thus has ultimately dismissed the appeal preferred by the tenant, granting a time of one moth for him to vacate the premises. 9. It is only challenging both the fair and decretal orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, holding in a concurrent manner that the tenant has become liable to be evicted on both grounds sought for by the landlord under Secs.10(2) (i) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the tenant has come forward to file the above revision petition on certain grounds as offered in the memorandum of grounds of revision, praying thereby to set aside both the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in the aforementioned manner. 10. The grievance of the revision petitioner/tenant is that both the courts below, in spite of himself being not guilty for wilful default in payment of rent, without adverting to the defence raised, have erroneously concluded that the revision petitioner was in wilful default in payment of rent and ordered his eviction. 10. The grievance of the revision petitioner/tenant is that both the courts below, in spite of himself being not guilty for wilful default in payment of rent, without adverting to the defence raised, have erroneously concluded that the revision petitioner was in wilful default in payment of rent and ordered his eviction. It would also be further contended that on the other ground under Sec.14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 also, the landlord has not established the requirement of the building for demolition and reconstruction and the evidence of P.W.1 adduced for this ground of eviction is insufficient and would pray to set aside the fair and decretal orders passed by both the Courts below. 11. The most vital point raised in the revision petition, by the revision petitioner/tenant is that he was not afforded with sufficient and reasonable opportunity by the Rent Controller and in spite of filing an application praying an opportunity to lead her side of evidence, the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the same. 12. Prior to entering into the merits of the case, since the revision petitioner/tenant has pleaded violation of principles of natural justice accusing of the Rent Controller for not affording her sufficient and reasonable opportunity, so as to lead her side of evidence, it has become highly necessary to first answer this legal question. 13. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would draw the attention of the court to the nil evidence produced on the part of the revision petitioner herein and would contend that under such circumstances, it is quite natural that the tenant failed before the Rent Controller without being in a position to establish her case. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would point out that taking advantage of the tenants somewhat late coming to the Court on the particular day, when the case was posted for her part of evidence to be let in, that was on 211. 1993, her chances were blocked by the Rent Controller, having closed the evidence on the side of the tenant and hence her case was allowed to die a natural death. It would further contended that on the very next day i.e., on 211. 1993, her chances were blocked by the Rent Controller, having closed the evidence on the side of the tenant and hence her case was allowed to die a natural death. It would further contended that on the very next day i.e., on 211. 1993, the revision petitioner herein filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.177 of 1993 before the Rent Controller praying to reopen the case to let in her evidence, but the learned Rent Controller without assigning sufficient cause or reason, dismissed the said application, as a result of which, the case came to be decided in favour of the landlord and would pray for a remand of the above matter for affording the tenant sufficient and reasonable opportunity to let in her part of evidence and to decide the matter on merits. 14. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord would contend that it has been pointed out by the Rent Controller that in spite of an opportunity afforded, the tenant did not avail the same on her own accord and hence it was not the Rent Controller who has to be blamed but the tenant herself. The learned counsel for the respondent would further argue that the Rent Controller dismissed the said Interlocutory Application with sufficient reasons and if at all the tenant had become aggrieved of the said order, she should have filed a revision against such an order, but that opportunity was also not availed by the tenant and allowed the said order to become final. On such grounds, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would strongly oppose the plea of remand of the case further saying that the matter has already been kept pending for 11 years and the remand if ordered would prey heavily on the landlord. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would point out that at this stage, the principle of res judicata would come into operation and it would bar any revival or remand of the matter, since the decision taken by the Rent Controller in dismissing the said Interlocutory Application filed by the tenant has become final. 115. A number of judgments have been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. 115. A number of judgments have been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. For the principle that normally the concurrent findings of facts regarding the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 are not to be interfered with unless perversity is shown, he would cite a judgment of this Court in R.Perianna Asari and another v. Jayakumar R.Perianna Asari and another v. Jayakumar R.Perianna Asari and another v. Jayakumar , (1997)1 L.W. 727 wherein it is held that: “Concurrent findings of fact, not to be interfered with, unless they are shown to be perverse.” The learned counsel would point out that since both the courts have concurrently decided to order eviction of the tenant from the premises on both grounds of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction, this Court could not interfere with and moreover it is not a case wherein the judgments rendered by the lower courts are perverse. 16. All other judgments cited are for the principle of res judicata being applied in subsequent stage of the same proceeding. The first one of such judgments, which is the earliest, has been reported in Raja Sashikanta Acharya v. Raja Sarat Chandra Rai Chaudhuri Raja Sashikanta Acharya v. Raja Sarat Chandra Rai Chaudhuri Raja Sashikanta Acharya v. Raja Sarat Chandra Rai Chaudhuri , A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 699 wherein it is held that: “The validity of an order made at one stage of a litigation, unless forthwith challenged by an appropriate proceeding in a superior tribunal, must be regarded as conclusive between the parties and cannot be questioned or collaterally attacked at a later stage. On the other hand, reference may legitimately be made to the judgment in the suit and if need be to proceedings to interpret the decree and to ascertain what the court has really decided.” The first paragraph of the above finding would mean that parties cannot question or attack the validity of an order made at one stage of the litigation, unless the same has been challenged by an appropriate proceeding in the upper forums of law. But the second paragraph is serving an exception to the above proposition stating thereby that reference may legitimately be made to the judgment in the suit or to interpret the decree and to ascertain what the court has really decided, (meaning thereby the main case in a proceeding). 17. But the second paragraph is serving an exception to the above proposition stating thereby that reference may legitimately be made to the judgment in the suit or to interpret the decree and to ascertain what the court has really decided, (meaning thereby the main case in a proceeding). 17. The next judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord is reported in Y.B.Patil and others v. Y.L.Patil Y.B.Patil and others v. Y.L.Patil Y.B.Patil and others v. Y.L.Patil , A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 392 wherein it is held that “Principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings; they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding on the subsequent stage of that proceeding.” 18. The other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord is one delivered in Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Madras and another v. K.M.Yakub (Died) by L.Rs., and others Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Madras and another v. K.M.Yakub (Died) by L.Rs., and others Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., Madras and another v. K.M.Yakub (Died) by L.Rs., and others , (1996)2 L.W. 817 wherein it is observed that, “Finding rendered at the interlocutory stage, held, will conclude the matter. Principle of res judicata - Applicability as between two stages in same litigation - Parties not to be allowed to reagitate matter again at subsequent stage of same proceedings.” 19. All the above judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord contemplate one point that once in an interlocutory application, an order is passed, unless the points raised therein are challenged in the said proceeding before the upper forums of law the same cannot be reagitated at subsequent stage of the same proceeding. These judgments have been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord for the question of opportunity raised on the part of the revision petitioner/tenant on ground that immediately after case was closed for evidence without an opportunity for her to lead her evidence, she made an application to the Rent Controller in I.A.No.177 of 1993 and the same had been dismissed without sufficient cause or reason. 20. True, according to the said decisions, the same plea to reopen the case cannot be reagitated in the subsequent proceeding since res judicata operates. 20. True, according to the said decisions, the same plea to reopen the case cannot be reagitated in the subsequent proceeding since res judicata operates. At the same time, whatever be the purpose intended to be achieved by the tenant, it comes to be known that an application to reopen the case for eviction has been filed and the same having been dismissed and the said order having become final, the same cannot be reagitated in the subsequent stages of the same proceedings. But, at the same time, there seems to be no bar for the tenant in the present case to resort to the maxim audi alteram partem meaning ‘the other side must be heard and the matter decided’, which is nothing but an aspect embodied in the high principles of natural justice and the order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to permit the tenant to reopen the case for letting in her part of evidence is not the answer. Nor does it come to be proved that the tenant was in the habit of absenting so as to deny her an opportunity. When lack of opportunity in violation of the principles of natural justice is pleaded, under no circumstances it could be said that the tenant cannot take shelter under such legal protection afforded for him and the courts cannot deny such an opportunity for the party when the claim of the party is not for a mere procedure to be followed but a fundamental and basic right which is protected under the constitutional umberlla. Moreover, as pointed out in the second paragraph of the judgment in Raja Sashikanta Acharya v. Raja Sarat Chandra Bai Chaudhuri , A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 699 it is not an ordinary relief that could be restricted with the interlocutory application but a larger, fundamental basic and rather a different relief regarding the right of petitioner spreading over the entire decision in the main R.C.O.P. proceeding itself and such a relief cannot be denied under cover of pleading res judicata. 21. It should be told here that the maxim audi alteram partem in its recognition has its deep roots to ages in the past. 21. It should be told here that the maxim audi alteram partem in its recognition has its deep roots to ages in the past. A clear-cut illustration has been given in a famous English case of the Twenties called “Bonams case”, wherein the learned Judge while ruling the importance of opportunity has remarked that even the Lord Almighty while deciding the case of the First Man of earth, Adem, did not pass on the sentence for the commission of the offence of having eaten the Fruit of the Forbidden Tree, without an opportunity for Adem to explain the circumstances leading to the situation. But, only after Adem pleading guilty of himself having defied the Command of God, then the sentence was passed on. While such is the inviolable Divine conviction which even Lord Almighty did not deny for the First Man of the earth, sitting on the decision of a man made law, Courts cannot deny the same to any litigant especially when it is sought for. Only in realisation of the importance and inevitable nature of this right when the same is denied, it is held violative of the principles of natural justice which is nothing short of violation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India. 22. In the above circumstances, needless to point out that since the interlocutory application has been filed only for reopening the case, the same cannot be construed as though in conflict with the present opportunity sought for by the petitioner, so as to plead res judicata Therefore, in the instant case, the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application to reopen the case for letting in evidence has indirectly offended the basic right of the petitioner. Hence, the opportunity now sought for is wider in its connotation the denial of which would mean violation of the High Principles of Natural Justice. 23. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that it is just and reasonable to afford a fair opportunity for the tenant to exhaust her remedies before the trial court. Moreover, even the plea of res judicata is argued by the landlord only before this revisional court and never before, in spite of the tenant having raised her plea of sufficient opportunity in the grounds of appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority himself. Moreover, even the plea of res judicata is argued by the landlord only before this revisional court and never before, in spite of the tenant having raised her plea of sufficient opportunity in the grounds of appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority himself. Hence, for deciding the whole matter on merits, it is necessary to afford the tenant a further opportunity to exhaust his remedies. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case on the above legal requirement alone, this matter becomes liable to be remanded to the Rent Controller for the compliance of this legal obligation and to decide the matter in consideration of the evidence that may be let in by the tenant in which event there is absolutely no bar for the landlord also to let in further evidence, if any. In result, .• (i) the fair and decretal order dated 22. 1996 made in R.C.A.No.20 of 1994 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, and the fair and decretal order dated 211. 1993 made in R.C.O.P.No.33 of 1988 by the Rent Controller and the Court of District Munsif, Thanjavur, are hereby set aside; .• (ii) The matter is remanded to the Rent Controller and the Court of District Munsif, Thanjavur, for further sufficient and reasonable opportunity to be afforded for both parties to be heard in full and to decide the matter in consideration of the facts, circumstances and the evidence let in; .• (iii) since sufficient time has lapsed already, the Rent Controller and the District Munsif, Thanjavur is directed to deal with the above matter on priority basis and deliver the order on merits in six months from the date of receipt of this order by him. With the above observations, this civil revision petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.