Judgment :- The main question that arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether the learned appellate authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, was competent to proceed further with regard to the determination of the rent payable by the petitioner, when once it reached a conclusion that by virtue of Exs.A.2 and A.3, the lease in respect of the petition premises was a composite one squarely coming within the provisions contained in Section 30 (iii) r/w Illustration No.3. 2. By virtue of the said conclusion reached by the learned appellate authority in the order impugned in this revision dated 03.07.1997 in R.C.A.No.21 of 1994, the appellate authority held that the Rent Controller, who ordered eviction as against the petitioner lacked jurisdiction to deal with the application for eviction. It is axiomatic that when once the learned Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction, by virtue of the said legal position as ascertained by the appellate authority, in the same breadth, the appellate authority would also loose its jurisdiction to proceed beyond the ascertainment of that legal position. In that view, the grievance of the petitioner is that the further discussions and conclusions arrived at by the learned appellate authority in regard to the rent payable by the petitioner for the demised premises whether it was Rs.2,500/- or Rs.5,000/- was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned appellate authority himself. I am in full agreement with the proposition propounded on behalf of the petitioner by Mr.S.P.Subramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In such circumstances, such of those conclusions that came to be rendered by the learned appellate authority on and after paragraph 11 of its order is therefore, liable to be set aside In Praesenti and the same is accordingly set aside. The revision petition is allowed to that limited extent. The parties will have to work out their remedies before the appropriate Court. It is however, made clear that any conclusions or observations made in this revision petition will not have any bearing in the suit, said to have been preferred by the respondent in respect of the demised premises as against the petitioner. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2156 OF 2000: Having regard to my conclusions and orders passed in C.R.P.No.266 of 1998, this civil revision petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs.