Judgment :- Challenge is made to an order of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, being the Rent Control Appellate Authority, made in MP No.109 of 2003 filed under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in RCA No.668 of 2002 pending before the said appellate forum. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. 3. Originally, the respondent herein filed a petition in RCOP No.1927 of 2000 alleging that she is the owner of the property; that the premises in question was let out to the revision petitioner-tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.1,690/-; that they fell in arrears of rental from March 2000 to September 2000, and thus, on the ground of willful default, the tenant was to be evicted. 4. It was resisted by the petitioner-tenant stating that he is a tenant under the landlady; that though the rental payment has been made then and there, no receipt has been issued; that there was no rental arrears at all as put forth in the petition; that apart from that, the monthly rental was not Rs.1,690/-as alleged by the landlady; that actually, it was a lesser amount, and thus, the petition was to be dismissed. 5. Pending the said RCOP, the landlady filed an application in MP No.219 of 2001 under Sec.11(4) of the Act for a direction to the tenant to deposit the rental arrears. Since the tenant has disputed the quantum of rental claimed by her, she was advised to file an application under Sec.11(3) of the Act. Accordingly, she filed an application in MP No.385 of 2001, and an order was passed by the Rent Controller directing the tenant to deposit Rs.42,250/- on or before 26. 2002 and the matter was posted to 26. 2002. Since the condition was not complied with, an order of eviction was passed on 26. 2002. Instead of complying with the conditional order, the tenant aggrieved over the order of eviction, filed an appeal in RCA No.668 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Pending the same, the instant application in MP No.109/2003 was filed by the landlady under Sec.11(4) of the Act seeking another direction to the tenant to deposit the rental arrears. Pending the same, the instant application in MP No.109/2003 was filed by the landlady under Sec.11(4) of the Act seeking another direction to the tenant to deposit the rental arrears. Accordingly, an order came to be passed by the appellate forum on 20.7.2004, with a direction to the petitioner-tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.48,080/- after deducting the deposit of Rs.6,000/- made by the tenant in the appeal. Without complying with the same, the revision petitioner-tenant has brought forth this revision before this Court, challenging the said order. 6. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, originally, there was an order passed under Sec.11(4) of the Act; that according to the landlady, the monthly rental was Rs.1,690/-; but, it was not the quantum; that it was actually challenged; that once an order has been passed under Sec.11(4) of the Act by the Rent Controller and the order of eviction itself was challenged, there was no need for filing another application before the appellate forum in MP No.109/2003; that the appellate forum has also passed another order for deposit of Rs.48,080/- which was not called for, and hence, it has got to be set aside. 7. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondent who would reiterate the reasons made out therein in order to sustain the impugned order. 8. After careful consideration of the submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision requires an order of dismissal in the hands of this Court. Admittedly, the revision petitioner herein is the tenant under the respondent-landlady. According to the landlady, Rs.1,690/-was the monthly rental; but, it was disputed by the tenant from the commencement of the proceedings. But, nowhere the tenant stated what is the monthly rental. This casts a doubt on the statement of the tenant. That apart, when the eviction petition was filed by the landlady in RCOP No.1927 of 2000, she also filed an application under Sec.11(4) of the Act. Thereafter, on advice, she filed another application under Sec.11(3) of the Act wherein the quantum of rent was fixed by the Rent Controller, and an order was passed directing the tenant to deposit Rs.42,250/-on or before 26. 2002; but, it was not done. Thereafter, on advice, she filed another application under Sec.11(3) of the Act wherein the quantum of rent was fixed by the Rent Controller, and an order was passed directing the tenant to deposit Rs.42,250/-on or before 26. 2002; but, it was not done. Under the circumstances, the RCOP itself was taken up by the Rent Controller, and an order of eviction was passed. Now, the aggrieved tenant took it on appeal before the appellate forum in RCA No.668 of 2002. Pending the RCA, another application was filed by the landlady in MP No.109/2003 wherein a direction was given by the appellate forum on 20.7.2004 that the revision petitioner-tenant must deposit Rs.48,080/-within the stipulated time; but, that was also not done. 9. Firstly, while the landlady came with a petition alleging that the monthly rental was Rs.1,690/-, nowhere the tenant has stated what was the rental, though he countered the petition. Secondly, the monthly rental was fixed by the Rent Controller under Sec.11(3) of the Act, and an order was passed directing the tenant to deposit the rental arrears, which remained unchallenged. Thirdly, the eviction was also ordered by the Rent Controller, and it was challenged before the appellate forum. An application was also filed by the landlady before the appellate forum under Sec.11(4) of the Act. The amount was actually pertaining to the period which was originally covered in the application under Sec.11(4) of the Act before the Rent Controller. However, not even any amount was paid at any point of time. On the contrary, now the revision petitioner comes forward to state that the entire payment has been made directly. It is a matter of surprise to note that while the proceedings are pending and the counter has been filed, and the quantum has also been agitated, no question of making any direct payment by the tenant to the landlady would arise. This would be indicative of the fact that from the commencement of the proceedings till this time, the tenant has made up his mind to come up with all subterfuge and ruse to suit his convenience and not even paid any amount. 10. This would be indicative of the fact that from the commencement of the proceedings till this time, the tenant has made up his mind to come up with all subterfuge and ruse to suit his convenience and not even paid any amount. 10. Now, at this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Rs.48,000/- has been deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court when stay was granted, which, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be a reason to allow the revision, while the circumstances which were noticed and attendant over the case. Hence, it is a fit case where the order of the appellate forum has got to be sustained. Both the Counsel would agree for a decision in respect of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and challenged before the appellate forum. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the order of eviction has got to be confirmed. Accordingly, the order of the appellate forum and the order of eviction by the Rent Controller are sustained. In view of the order passed above, the appellate authority is directed to give consequential disposal to the RCA No.668 of 2002 pending on its file. 11. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he is occupying the premises for carrying on his business, and hence, he must find out a suitable accommodation to shift the business to the other place, and hence, he requires sufficient time. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondent. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Court feels that reasonable time has got to be given. Accordingly, 9 (nine) months time is granted to the petitioner for vacating and handing over possession to the landlady. An affidavit of undertaking should be filed within a period of two weeks herefrom. The monthly rent at the rate of Rs.1,690/- has got to be paid by the tenant during the relevant period. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.