ORDER: Respondents 2, 4 and 5 in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1993 on the file of Rent Controller, Thanjavur are the petitioners in the above revision. The first respondent herein filed the said rent control petition against one M.Antaony Lazor (second respondent herein) and petitioners herein for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. Before the Rent Controller, 2nd respondent herein first respondent therein filed a counter statement wherein he denied all the averments made by the landlord. He also stated that in view of slump in his business, he sublet the petition premises to other persons. The petitioners herein filed a common counter statement wherein it is stated that the petition mentioned property belongs to one Abdul Wahab and they are tenants only under him. They specifically denied the ownership claimed by the first respondent herein. It is also stated that there is no landlord tenant relationship between them and the first respondent herein. Pending the Rent control proceedings, first respondent herein filed I.A.No.6 of 1996 under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) claiming a sum of Rs.1,23,000 towards arrears for a period of 41 months in respect of the petition mentioned shops. The petitioners herein filed a counter statement wherein they once again reiterated that there is no privity of contract between them and the petitioner therein and they further stated that the contract of tenancy is only with the first respondent therein. They also reiterated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the petitioner therein, they are not sub-lessee of the first respondent therein. They also reiterated that they are tenants from the real owner Abdul Wahab, as such the application filed under Sec.11(4) of the Act for payment of alleged arrears of rent is also not maintainable in so far as they are concerned. 2. The Rent Controller, after conducting an enquiry, directed them to pay a sum of Rs.72,000 towards 24 months arrears on or before 27.1.1999 failing which the eviction petition will be ordered. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein filed R.C.A.No.2 of 1999 before the Appellate Authority. 2. The Rent Controller, after conducting an enquiry, directed them to pay a sum of Rs.72,000 towards 24 months arrears on or before 27.1.1999 failing which the eviction petition will be ordered. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein filed R.C.A.No.2 of 1999 before the Appellate Authority. Pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioners herein also filed I.A.No.3 of 1999 in the appeal to stay the operation of the order in I.A.No.6 of 1996 in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1993 on the file of the rent Controller, Thanjavur. The Appellate Authority, after holding that right to contest rent control petition arises only after deposit of arrears, confirmed the order and directed them to deposit Rs.72,000 on or before 6.4.1999. Against the said order, the petitioners have filed the present revision. 3. I have heard Mr.K.N.Basha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.L.Narayanan, learned counsel for contesting first respondent. 4. I have already stated that even at the earliest point of time in the counter statement filed by the petitioners in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1993, they specifically pleaded that the petitioner therein is not their landlord and that there is no landlord- tenant relationship between them. According to them, one Abdul Wahab is the owner of the shops in question. In para.3 of the counter statement, it is specifically stated that, Again in para.5, it is stated that, Apart from this, even in the counter statement filed in I.A.No.6 of 1996 filed under Sec.11(4) of the Act, is paragraph 3, they once again reiterated that, “....In the main application it is clearly stated by the petitioner that there is no privity of contract between him and these respondents and that the alleged contract of tenancy is only with the first respondent...” The specific stand taken by the petitioner herein both in the main rent control proceedings as well as in the Sec.11(4) proceedings would show that they are tenants only under one Abdul Wahab from 1972 and without any default rents were being paid to him only. In such a circumstances even though the learned Rent Controller has adjourned the Sec.11(4) proceedings on several occasions, ultimately without considering the specific claim of the petitioners, erroneously passed an order directing them to pay a sum of Rs.72,000 as arrears of rent on or before 27.1.1999. Further, the Rent Controller committed the following errors in arriving his conclusion. In such a circumstances even though the learned Rent Controller has adjourned the Sec.11(4) proceedings on several occasions, ultimately without considering the specific claim of the petitioners, erroneously passed an order directing them to pay a sum of Rs.72,000 as arrears of rent on or before 27.1.1999. Further, the Rent Controller committed the following errors in arriving his conclusion. In para.7, he has erroneously stated that, In this above paragraph, it is stated that, All the above conclusions are contrary to the stand of the petitioners herein. Absolutely there is no basis for arriving at such conclusion. Likewise, the appellate authority while disposing of I.A.No.3 of 1999, has also committed the same error in holding that the petitioners are sub-lessees under S.K.Kandasamy Nadar, first respondent before the Rent Controller. In para.2, the appellate authority has observed that, “Heard in full. It is averred by these petitioners before the Rent controller that thy are sub-lessees under petitioner No.1 wrongly described as petitioner No.1 instead of first respondent)”. It is clear that both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority proceeded on the wrong assumption that the petitioners have admitted that they are sub-lessess of S.K.Kandasamy Nadar. The said conclusions of both the authorities is liable to be set aside. In a matter like this, when a specific plea is taken disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it is but proper to conduct an enquiry and decide the said question before dealing with an application filed under Sec.11 of the Act. It is clear from the provisions that in dealing with an application under Sec.11 of the Act, where the relationship of the landlord and tenant is admitted, no difficulty arises. However, in cases where such relationship was disputed by placing acceptable evidence, the Rent Controller has to adjudicate upon the relationship and pass appropriate orders and cannot throw out the application on the ground that there is a disputed relationship. It is the duty of the Rent Controller to decide the said question before dealing with an application under Sec.11, of the Act. The same view has been reiterated by Ratnam, J., (as he then was) in Kesava Naicker v. Sivananda Mudaliar, 93 L.W. 484. The legal position as well as the factual error committed by both the authorities has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The same view has been reiterated by Ratnam, J., (as he then was) in Kesava Naicker v. Sivananda Mudaliar, 93 L.W. 484. The legal position as well as the factual error committed by both the authorities has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders of both the authorities passed in I.A.No.6 of 1996 in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller, Thanjavur as well as in I.A.No.3 of 1999 in R.C.A.No.2 of 1999 on the file of Sub Judge, Thanjavur/ Appellate Authority are set aside. The Rent Controller is directed to adjudicate upon the relationship of the parties and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned. Thereafter, depending on the out-come of such enquiry, it is open to the landlord to take appropriate steps to recover the arrears of rent. Net result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, both the miscellaneous petition are closed.