ORDER: These civil revision petitions have been filed by the tenant as revision petitioner against the order and decretal order dated 15.9.1998 and made in I.A. No.8 of 1998 in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997, and the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1998 and made in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997 respectively by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Chengalpattu. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows: The revision petitioner, who is the tenant of the premises described in the Rent Control Petition in R.C.O.P. No.5 of 1994, was evicted from the said premises on the grounds of willful default, subletting and user of the demised premises for different purposes than for which it was let out. The tenant as appellant has filed an appeal in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Chengalpattu. During the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal, the first respondent herein, who is the landlord of the demised premises, filed a petition in I.A. No.8 of 1998 in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997 under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for a direction to pay the arrears of rent within the time specified by the Court or in default to stop further proceedings in the appeal. Admittedly, an order was passed on 15.9.1998 holding that the revisional petitioner in both civil revision petitions is in arrears of rent to an extent of Rs.2,000 and, therefore, the further proceedings in the rent control appeal has to be stopped and the tenant has to deliver possession to the landlord forthwith. It is not in dispute that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, who found that the revision petitioner is in arrears, has not granted time for payment of arrears of rent. Consequent on the order passed in I.A. No.8 of 1998, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal with direction to hand over possession to the landlord forthwith. Aggrieved at the order and decretal order passed in I.A. No.8 of 1998 and judgment and decreed passed in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Chengalpattu, the tenant as revision petitioner has come forward with these civil revision petitions. 3. Aggrieved at the order and decretal order passed in I.A. No.8 of 1998 and judgment and decreed passed in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Chengalpattu, the tenant as revision petitioner has come forward with these civil revision petitions. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in both these civil revision petitions straightaway brought to the notice of this Court the decision rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court (Abdul Hadi, J.) in Rajagopal v. Salma Beevi and others, 1994 T.L.N.J. 78, wherein the learned Judge has held that before invoking the provisions of Sec.11(4) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, should give sufficient time to the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent, as otherwise, the order passed under Sec.11(4) of the Act is unsustainable. 4. In this case, as already pointed out, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who had given a finding that the civil revision petitioner is in arrears of rent to an extent of Rs.2,000 in a proceeding under Sec.11(4) of the Act, ought to have granted time for payment of rent but he has failed to do so. Now, the learned counsel appearing for both sides concede that the arrears of rent, as found due by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, was already paid and received and there is no arrears of rent now as found by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in I.A. No.8 of 1998 in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997 cannot be sustained for want of grant of time for payment of arrears of rent due. The above said order has to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 5. Consequent to the setting aside of the order and decretal order in I.A. No.8 of 1998, the order of eviction passed by dismissing the appeal in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997 based on the order passed in I.A. No.8 of 1998 has also to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents, while conceding the legal position referred to above and the consequent orders to be passed by this Court, submitted that they have no objection to fix a reasonable time for disposal of the appeal on merits. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents, while conceding the legal position referred to above and the consequent orders to be passed by this Court, submitted that they have no objection to fix a reasonable time for disposal of the appeal on merits. This Court feels that granting two months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and records from this Court for disposal of the appeal in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997 will meet the ends of justice and accordingly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is hereby directed to restore the Rent Control Appeal to the file and directed to restore the Rent Control Appeal to the file and dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and records in accordance with law. 7. In fine, the order and decretal order passed in I.A. No.8 of 1998 as well as the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No.9 of 1997 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority are set aside and the civil revision petitions are allowed subject to observation made above. There will be no order as to costs. The parties are hereby directed to appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on 12.9.2002 without fail and extend co-operation to dispose of the appeal within the stipulated time.