Judgment :- The revision petitioner/petitioner/respondent has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order dated 24.06.2008 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam. 2. The learned Rent Controller while passing orders in I.A.No.4 of 2007 has inter alia observed that Whether the Administrator derive the powers from the said M.C.J.C. Longmore, directly or without the power from M.C.J.C. Longmore, the Administrator has a right to institute this main petition and is not a pure question of fact and law and that the plea taken by the petitioner is the mixed question of fact and law and dismissed the application filed under Section 11(1) of the Rules without costs. .3. .3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the learned Rent Controller ought to have seen that the main rent control petition is only an abuse of process of law and if allowed to continue will result in miscarriage of justice and further that the respondent/respondent/petitioner who himself the author of the lease cum agreement of sale deed having executed the deed on behalf of M.A. Browne Estates Administrator M.C.J.C.Longmore has cunningly filed the present petition for recovery of arrears of rent by fraudulently omitting his principal name in the cause title and thus he has acted in unfair manner and came to the Court with unclean hands and further that the rent control proceedings and the suit initiated by the respondent/petitioner in the capacity of Administrator to the estate of M.A. Browne is subject matter of dispute in O.P.No.34 of 2004 and the said issue is pending before this Court in C.R.P.No.1368 of 2008 and hence, he has no locus standi to file the original petition and moreover, the learned Rent Controller should have seen that the proceedings initiated by the respondent in his capacity as Power Agent to the Administrator is illegal because of the fact that an Administrator to an estate of the deceased cannot sub delegate his powers and further that the petition in R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2005 is based on alleged lease cum sale agreement which has not been looked into by the learned Rent Controller and hence, the order passed by him is perverse, illegal and granting premium to the illegality and further that the learned Rent Controller should have seen that the cause of action has arisen on 26.09.1990 when the agreement of sale cum lease deed executed on behalf of M.C.J.C. Longmore being Administrator to the M.A. Browne Estate by this respondent as a Power of Attorney Agent and hence, prays for allowing the revision to prevent aberration of justice. 4. 4. It is pertinent to point out that in I.A.No.4 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No.38 of 2005 pending on the file of Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam, the revision petitioner/ petitioner/respondent has inter alia averred that the R.C.O.P.No.38 of 2005 itself is not maintainable as the said M.C.J.C. Longmore does not derive any power from the estate of the deceased Mary Aline Browne nor he is a legal heir of the deceased Mary Aline Browne and that the said Longmore has not produced any document in the R.C.O.P. to show that he is entitled to the schedule property and that the respondent/respondent/petitioner has arrayed the said M.C.J.C. Longmore as his principal and as an alleged Power Agent and he has filed the RCOP and when the said Longmore has himself not having any legal right over the schedule property, there is no question of giving power to third person and even assuming the said Longmore is a delegate of the estate of deceased Mary Aline Browne, he cannot further sub- delegate his powers as the law says a delegate himself cannot sub-delegate his powers to another etc. .5. The further case of the revision petitioner/ petitioner/respondent is that he has entered into a lease agreement on 211. 1990 with the respondent/respondent/ petitioner for lease of the schedule property on the condition and proposal to purchase the schedule property and whereas the respondent has agreed and accepted the same and that the respondent has permitted to renovate and carryout improvements in the schedule mentioned property including demolition and reconstruction of any portion which requires so at the cost of the petitioner and this itself impliedly shows that the agreement is presumed and construed to be an agreement for sale of the property rather than lease agreement and that one Mrs. Elezabeth Anthony has also got a Will regarding the schedule property and as such there is a dispute regarding the title and ownership of the schedule property and pending the above dispute, the respondent/ respondent/petitioner cannot claim right over the property and that he has paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- on behalf of the respondent to one Louis, who was a previous tenant in one of the house in the schedule property and to vacate him and not as a security deposit as alleged by the respondent and this amount has been given by the petitioner herein with an intention of purchasing the schedule property and from 211. 1990 the petitioner is paying all the necessary water, property and land taxes to the concerned authorities till date without fail. 6. The pith and substance of the contention of the revision petitioner/petitioner/respondent is that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between him and the respondent and as such the respondent/petitioner has no locus standi to file the RCOP proceedings against him and the terms and conditions of the agreement clearly establishes the nature of agreement is for sale of the schedule property rather than lease agreement and therefore, prays to dismiss the main RCOP on the question of law. 7. The respondent/respondent/petitioner has taken a stand before the learned Rent Controller stating that the I.A.No.4 of 2007 filed under Section 11(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is not at all maintainable and only after full enquiry in the main RCOP proceedings, the question of allowing the RCOP or dismissing the same will arise and that the main petition cannot be dismissed summarily and that the petitioner has taken possession of the premises in question from the respondent under the tenancy agreement and therefore, he is estopped from questioning the respondents title or respondents right to file the main RCOP for fixation of fair rent and that in I.A.No.158 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2005 the Honble Court has appointed Mr.A.Ranjit Kumar, Advocate as the Court Commissioner and despite the Commissioner making two visits to the premises the petitioner has not allowed the Commissioner to get into the premises in question etc. and in any event, the petition is devoid of any substance and the same is to be dismissed on merits with exemplary costs. 8. and in any event, the petition is devoid of any substance and the same is to be dismissed on merits with exemplary costs. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Administrator has issued a legal notice dated 22.04.2005 addressed to the revision petitioner inter alia stating that the revision petitioner has not cleared the arrears of rent relating to the period from 012. 1990 to 30.11.1991 and for the period from 012. 1991 to 31.03.2005 and out of the balance arrears of Rs.1,28,600/-, the revision petitioner has been asked to deduct the house tax paid for him by cottage and to pay the balance by 31.05.2005 within the stipulated date without fail etc. For which a reply notice dated 26.05.2005 has been issued by the petitioners counsel (addressed to the Administrator of the estate of M.A. Browne deceased) among other things mentioning that in 1990 while taking possession and occupying the above mentioned cottage it was orally agreed that Mr.J.Prabhu would rent out the houses and collect the rent and there was no rent for the cottage and land occupied by his client and the same has been done till date (16 years) and that his client as per the oral agreement with the Power of Attorney Agent J.Prabhu is prepared to pay the balance sale consideration for the above mentioned Oriental Cottage with outhouse and land measuring 38 cents or thereabouts after deducting the amount spend for building the cottage in 1990 as well as the amount spend for dropping the Land Acquisition Proceedings etc. and further that in the rejoinder dated 01.06.2005 (as seen from the typed set of papers) issued to the revision petitioners Advocate, it is inter alia mentioned that the revision petitioner/petitioner/respondent has been required to pay the entire arrears of rent on or before 15th June 2005 etc., have not been taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller at the time of passing the orders in I.A.No.4 of 2007 and therefore, in the interest of justice, the revision has to be allowed. 9. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/ respondent/petitioner contends that the I.A.No.4 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner is per se not maintainable in law and that the revision petitioner having taken possession of the premises in question from the respondent under tenancy agreement is estopped from disputing the respondents title or his right to file the main RCOP for fixation of fair rent and only after full-fledged enquiry in the main petition a decision can be arrived at and hence, the I.A.No.4 of 2007 is devoid of any merits and the same may be dismissed. .10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner cites the decision in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another V. Indusind Bank Limited and others (2005-3-L.w.403) whereby and whereunder the Honble Supreme Court has inter alia observed that "the expression "acts" in O.3, R.2 of Civil Procedure Code would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal -If the power of attorney holder has rendered some "acts" in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him - He cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge." 11. It is pertinent to point out that Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 has no reference to the determination of any disputed question. As a matter of fact, Section 11 is intended to prevent defaulters from continuing in possession of the property taking advantage of the pendency of an application without at the same time performing their part of the obligation. Moreover, the language of Section 11 is crystal clear. Added further, the controversy/dispute as to whether the Administrator derive the powers from M.C.J.C. Longmore directly or without the power from M.C.J.C. Longmore, the Administrator has a right to initiate the main petition or all matters which are purely a mixed question of facts and law. In as much as Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 has no reference to the determination of any disputed question, this Court is of the considered view that I.A.No.4 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/respondent is not maintainable per se in law. 12. In as much as Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 has no reference to the determination of any disputed question, this Court is of the considered view that I.A.No.4 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/respondent is not maintainable per se in law. 12. Coming next to the aspect that the revision petitioner/petitioner/respondent has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution before this Court it is to be pointed out that a finding as to whether circumstances justify the exercise of a discretion or not unless clearly perverse and patently unreasonable is, after all a finding of fact only which cannot be interfered with under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution. In rent control litigation between the landlord and tenant or tenant and landlord, it is usual for a party to fight till the bitter end. The function of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited seeing that the Subordinate Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. In short, the power under Article 227 is one of judicial superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset the conclusion of facts. .13. In view of the detailed discussions mentioned supra and in as much as Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 has no reference to the determination of any disputed question and further because of the another important fact that the plea taken by the revision petitioner/petitioner/respondent revolves on a mixed question of facts and law, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the view taken by the learned Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam in dismissing the I.A.No.4 of 2007 is not perverse and on the other hand, the same is quite reasonable and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 14. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.4 of 2007 is affirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. 14. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.4 of 2007 is affirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. It is open to the respective parties to put forward their contentions/ objections/pleas in the pending main R.C.O.P.No.38 of 2005 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam and to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law and that the learned Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam is directed to dispose of the main RCOP within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court. The parties are directed to lend their cooperation for the completion of the proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.