Judgment : 1. Both the above civil revision petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner/tenant, C.R.P.No.1419 of 2000 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11. 2000 made in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and C.R.P.No.1420 of 2000 has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 11. 2000 made in M.P.No.440 of 1999 in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998 by the same Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. For easy reference, C.R.P.No.1419 of 2000 is hereinafter referred to as the first C.R.P. and C.R.P.No.1420 of 2000 as the second C.R.P. .3. On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both it comes to be known that the first respondent herein/the landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.2534 of 1995 before the Rent Controller and the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras against the tenants i.e., the petitioner and the second respondent herein along with one Tata Rao, Sales Operation Manager of Carona Limited (who was given up in the R.C.A.) seeking eviction of the tenants under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960; that the rent controller having conducted enquiry of the matter, wherein on the part of the landlord, he got examined himself as P.W.1 for oral evidence and marked three documents as Exs.A-1 to A-3 and on the part of the tenants, one Ananda Krishnan got examined as R.W.1 for oral evidence but no documents were marked on their side for documentary evidence and having assessed the facts pleaded by parties and further having regard to the materials placed on record, as aforementioned, and upon hearing the learned counsel for both had ultimately arrived at the conclusion to reject the claim of the landlord seeking eviction of the tenants for wilful default in payment of rent under Sec.10(2)(i), but allowed the application on the other ground viz., for additional accommodation of the landlord under Sec.10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the VII Judge, Court of Small CausesMadras. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the VII Judge, Court of Small CausesMadras. During pendency of the said appeal, the first respondent/landlord filed a petition in M.P.No.440 of 1999 in R.C.A.No.428 of 1999 under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 claiming arrears of rent of Rs.1,04,350 from March, 1999 to July, 1999 seeking for a direction to the tenants to credit the said amount to the petitioner/landlords S.B. account No.11045 of Canara Bank, Chennai and in default to shop all further proceedings in the said R.C.A.No.428 of 1999 and to make an order directing the tenants to vacate the premises and put the landlord in vacant possession of the petition premises. The Rent Control Appellate Authority as per its conditional order dated 211. 1999 in M.P.No.440 of 1999 directed the tenants to pay the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.89,725 within 112. 1999 lest to pass the eviction order against the tenants and posted the matter on 112. 1999. Since without complying the said conditional order dated 211. 1999, the petitioner herein filed a petition in M.P.No.651 of 1999 for extension of time to deposit the said arrears, the Rent Control Appellate Authority extended the same till 1. 2000 by its order dated 112. 1999 made in M.P.No.651 of 1999. But, since the petitioner herein again filed a petition in M.P.No.16 of 2000, without complying the said conditional order dated 211. 1999, seeking further extension of time, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the said M.P.No.16 of 2000, allowed the M.P.No.440 of 1999 filed by the landlord under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 consequently stopping all further proceedings and ordering eviction in the R.C.A.No.428 of 1999. It is only testifying the validity of the orders passed in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998 and M.P.No. 440 of 1999 in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998, the petitioner herein has come forward to respectively file C.R.P.Nos.1419 and 1420 of 2000 above on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision. 5. It is only testifying the validity of the orders passed in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998 and M.P.No. 440 of 1999 in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998, the petitioner herein has come forward to respectively file C.R.P.Nos.1419 and 1420 of 2000 above on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision. 5. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the tenant has given reasons for unavoidable delay in effecting payment and thereby seeking extension of time to make the payment but the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein in M.P.No.16 of 2000 and that the counter says that there are arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.2,38,000. The learned counsel would further contend that had be been allowed the second extension of time, the question of dismissing the R.C.A. would not have arisen at all and would pray for allowing both the above civil revision petitions. .6. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/landlord would submit that the premises consists of basement, ground floor and first floor; that based on an agreement dated 13. 1989, the tenant was inducted into possession of the premises; that in the year 1995, the landlord filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller for wilful default and for additional accommodation; that on 13. 1998 the Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenant on ground of additional accommodation; that before the Rent Controller, the first respondent therein i.e., the Carona Limited remained ex parte and the present revision petitioner, who is the third respondent before the Rent Controller preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority; that during pendency of the appeal, the landlord filed a petition under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act claiming arrears of rent; that the appellate authority directed payment of the arrears from December, 1997 to February, 1999 i.e., for 15 months after adjusting the advance etc. within 112. 1999 and since the tenant filed a petition seeking extension of time for effecting payment, the Rent Control Appellate Authority extended the time till 1. 2000 and since the petitioner/tenant did not effect payment and again has come forward to file another application seeking further extension of time, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the said application and the Appeal thus ordering eviction. 7. 2000 and since the petitioner/tenant did not effect payment and again has come forward to file another application seeking further extension of time, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the said application and the Appeal thus ordering eviction. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent/landlord would further point out that the main order had been passed on 211. 1999 in M.P.No.440 of 1999 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority thereby directing the tenant to effect payment and the tenant has not challenged the said order, but challenging the order dated 11. 2000 passed in M.P.No.440 of 1999, which is only a consequential order he has come forward to file both the above civil revision petitions and hence at this score itself, both the revision petitions are not maintainable and that before the Rent Controller, the first respondent therein i.e., the Carona Limited remained ex parte and the present petitioner contended before the Rent Controller that he is not the tenant under the landlord and therefore there is not privity of contract between himself and the landlord. 8. The learned counsel for the first respondent/landlord relied on a decision of this Court delivered in Iqbal and Company, by its Partner A.Mohamed Hassim v. Abdul Rahim Iqbal and Company, by its Partner A.Mohamed Hassim v. Abdul Rahim Iqbal and Company, by its Partner A.Mohamed Hassim v. Abdul Rahim , (1982)1 MLJ. 221 wherein in an identical case of tenant preferring the civil revision petition against allowing the petition filed by the landlord under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by the Rent Controller after extending the time for the tenant to effect payment and further dismissing the petition filed by the tenant for the second time for further extension of time to effect payment, this Court held that “revision against dismissal not competent.” 9. In these circumstances, the pertinent point that is to be decided is whether both the above civil revision petitions could be allowed as it is prayed for on the part of the tenant. 10. Materials are available to the effect that the conditional order had been passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 211. 1999 in exercise of its jurisdiction pending disposal of the appeal on the application filed by the landlord under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 10. Materials are available to the effect that the conditional order had been passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 211. 1999 in exercise of its jurisdiction pending disposal of the appeal on the application filed by the landlord under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenant, without complying the condition, had sought for the extension of time to comply with the same. Though technically non-compliance of the condition imposed in the order would automatically result in further orders of eviction to be passed, so as to handover possession of the property to the landlord within the meaning of Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, still, taking a broader view, the Court below had permitted the petitioner/tenant extending the time still further. Even without complying the condition within that extended time, when the petitioner sought for further extension, the same had been rejected and orders passed allowing the petition filed by the landlord under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and dismissing the very appeal filed on the part of the petitioner herein. It is against the eviction order passed in the petition filed under Sec.11(4) of the Act and the appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority both the above revision petitions have been filed by the tenant. 11. A cursory glance made into the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which have given way for filing of the above civil revision petitions, would reveal that the appellate authority has been perfectly within his jurisdiction and ambit of powers in passing such orders and only affording adequate opportunity for the petitioner and the other side to be heard, both the orders have been passed by him. No procedural flaw or failure had also taken place nor is it complained of on the part of the petitioner herein. In fact, in the circumstances that were prevalent in the case, order that have been passed by the appellate authority adhering to the facts of the case are inevitable. It is on account of the failure of the tenant to comply with the conditional order passed, the final order came to be passed by the appellate authority that too with yet another opportunity for the tenant to comply with the conditional order, by means of extension of time. It is on account of the failure of the tenant to comply with the conditional order passed, the final order came to be passed by the appellate authority that too with yet another opportunity for the tenant to comply with the conditional order, by means of extension of time. Hence, there is no denying of the fact that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had passed both the orders in the manner as it is warranted and in fact the appellate authority, in the circumstances of the case, has been left with no option but to pass such orders impugned herein. 12. The provisions of Sec.22(1) and (3) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 as pleaded on the part of the petitioner, have no application to the case in hand and they have absolutely no bearing on the petition instituted under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act especially in view of the position of law that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are not general in nature but of a special Act. Therefore, the provisions of Sec.22(1) and (3) of the Sick Industrial companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 cannot have any overriding effect on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 13. No procedural failure nor lack of opportunity had taken place nor complained of on the part of the petitioner/tenant in the making of both the orders impugned. No patent error of law nor perversity in approach are seen in the passing of both the orders by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Hence, the interference of this Court that is sought for as against the passing of the said orders by the Rent Control Appellate Authority as per both the above civil revision petitions as unnecessary and uncalled for. In result, both the above civil revision petitions fail and they are dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 11. 2000 made in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998 and the fair and decretal order dated 11. 2000 made in M.P.No.440 of 1999 in R.C.A.No.428 of 1998 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras are hereby confirmed. However, in the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.6768 and 6769 of 2000 are also dismissed.