Judgment :- C.R.P.No.2689 of 1996 is filed questioning the order dated 19.3.1996 in I.A.No.196 of 1996 in R.C.A.No.20 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore. Similarly, C.R.P.No.2690 of 1996 is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.3.1996 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore in R.C.A.No.20 of 1995 reversing the decree and judgment dated 18.11.1994 in R.C.O.P.No.300 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (III Additional District Munsiff), Coimbatore. 2. The revision petitioner/tenant filed R.C.O.P.No.300 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (III Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred as "Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960") to permit her to deposit the rent on account of the fact that the respondents/landlords refused to receive the rent remitted by M.O. under sub-Section (iv) of that Section and continue to deposit the rent into the Court. The learned Rent Controller having analysed the evidence adduced allowed the revision petitioner to remit the rent into the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who having heard the arguments of both sides allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Rent Controller. Further the Rent Control Appellate Authority permitted the revision petitioner to produce the documents as additional evidence which have been received and marked as Exs.R-1 to R-3 in the appeal. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, these revision petitions have been filed by the revision petitioner (since deceased). 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has argued at the out set that since the respondents refused to receive the rent sent by the 1st petitioner through M.O., the 1st petitioner was constrained to file the petition before the Rent Controller to remit the rent into the Court. Hence, he has urged that the order passed by the learned Rent controller permitting the 1st petitioner to deposit the rent into Court has to be confirmed by setting aside the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 4. Hence, he has urged that the order passed by the learned Rent controller permitting the 1st petitioner to deposit the rent into Court has to be confirmed by setting aside the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the common judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority wherein he has observed that Exs.R-1 to R-3 reveal that as early as 28.3.1991, the demised premises had been sold by the respondents in favour of one Pradeesh Kumar and Premila and such transfer had been made known to the revision petitioner in the year 1992 itself and that in spite of such information furnished, the revision petitioner filed the said petition for depositing the rent and therefore he has rejected the contention put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner that the respondents had not informed him about the transfer of the demised premises. 5. On a careful perusal of the orders passed by the Courts below, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, one has to come to the irresistible conclusion that the duty cast upon the tenant, the revision petitioner herein (since deceased) is to initiate the proceedings against the transferee only and not against the transferors as has been done in this case. 6. It is well settled law that the duty is cast upon the person who is entitled to collect the rent when there is a change of ownership of the building and conversely, it is not the duty of the tenant to search and find out the person who is entitled to collect the rent and tender the rent to such person. In the light of the above principle, the revision petitioner/ tenant having known the particulars of the transferees of the building ought to have filed the petition against them after exhausting the remedies made available under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 to remit the rent in respect of the demised premises. 7. In any view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioner has failed to discharge the duty cast upon him under law. 7. In any view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petitioner has failed to discharge the duty cast upon him under law. It is therefore apparent on the face of the records that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority was correct in permitting the respondents to mark the additional documents in the appeal so as to render the correct decision on the aspect of the matter under consideration. For the reasons stated above, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. Thus, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, but without costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.14793 of 1996 is closed.