JUDGMENT 1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the blanket orders of stay granted by the Appellate Authority, Pending Appeals arising out of fair rents fixed by the Rent controller. 2. Heard Mr. N.C. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Narendran, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 3. The Petitioner is the landlord and the Respondents in all these Three Civil Revision Petitions are the Tenants. The Petitioner filed Separate Petitioner under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the Respondents in these Three Civil Revision Petitions in R.C.O.P. Nos.637, 638 & 639 of 2006, seeking fixation of fair rent. The admitted rent paid by the Respondents in C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.3472 & 3473 of 2008 was Rs.1,500/-per month. The admitted rent paid by the Respondent in C.R.P. (NPD) No.3471 of 2008 was Rs.1,800/- per month. 4. After enquiry, the Rent Controller passed independent orders in each of those Petitions on 22.11.2006, fixing the fair rent payable in respect of each of those portions at Rs.6,252/- per months. This was on account of the fact that all the three portions occupied by the Respondent in these three Civil Revision Petitions were of the same area and identical in nature. 5. Aggrieved by the fixation of fair rent made by the Rent Controller, the Respondents in these three Civil Revision Petitions filed separate Appeals in R.C.A. Nos.304, 305 & 306 of 2007 on the file of the Appellate Authority. Along with the Appeals, the Respondents also filed Petitions for interim stay, in M.P.Nos.407, 408 & 409 of 2007. The Petitioner filed Counter Affidavits in the Petitions for stay, contending that a blanket stay may not serve the ends of justice. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed independent orders in all the Petitions for stay, on 15.2.2008, granting an unconditional order of stay of the order of Rent Controller, in favour of the Respondents herein. It is against the grant of unconditional orders of stay in favour of the Respondents that the Petitioner has come up with the present Civil Revision Petitions. 6. As stated earlier, the admitted rent in respect of the Respondents in two Civil Revision Petitions is Rs.1,500/- per month and the admitted rent in respect of the portion occupied by the Respondent in C.R.P. (NPD) No.3471 of 2008 is Rs.1,800/-per month. 6. As stated earlier, the admitted rent in respect of the Respondents in two Civil Revision Petitions is Rs.1,500/- per month and the admitted rent in respect of the portion occupied by the Respondent in C.R.P. (NPD) No.3471 of 2008 is Rs.1,800/-per month. The Petitioner/Landlord, filed a report of an Engineer, claiming fair rent at Rs.9,831/-per months. The Respondents also filed reports of their own Engineers, who had evaluated the fair rent for each of those portions at Rs.3,506/- per month. The Rent Controller after analysis of the evidence on record, fixed the fair rent at Rs.6,252/-. 7. In view of the above facts, Mr. N.C. Ashok Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority was not justified in granting an unconditional blanket order of stay, especially when the report filed by the Engineers of the Respondent themselves showed the fair that could be fixed, at Rs.3,506/-. 8. Mr. R. Narendran, learned Counsel for the Respondents in all the Civil Revision Petitions raise three contentions viz.: (a) that the Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution are not maintainable inasmuch as there is a provision for filing a Revision under Section 25 of the Act; (b) that Section 23(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 empowers the Appellate Authority to grant stay and that such an exercise of discretion cannot be interfered with; and (c) that in any case, the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller would not attain finality till the statutory remedies of Appeal and Revision available under the Act, are exhausted. 9. I have carefully considered the above submissions. 10. In so fair the first contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is concerned, it is seen that the Petitioner had originally indicated as though the Revisions were filed under Section 227 of the Constitution. However, they have in fact filed the Revision Petitions under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The orders under Revision were actually passed on 15.2.2008 by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner had made Copy Applications on 18.2.2008, and the certified copies were made ready on 6.9.2008. On 29.9.2008, the Petitioner had filed the Revision Petitions, within 30 days, prescribed under Section 25 for filing a Revision. The orders under Revision were actually passed on 15.2.2008 by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner had made Copy Applications on 18.2.2008, and the certified copies were made ready on 6.9.2008. On 29.9.2008, the Petitioner had filed the Revision Petitions, within 30 days, prescribed under Section 25 for filing a Revision. But unfortunately, the cause title indicated as though it was a Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution and the Petitioner had also paid Rs.200/- as Court-fee, though the Court-fee payable is only Rs.50/-. Thus, all the Revision Petitions have been filed within the time limit prescribed for filing a Revision under Section 25 of the Act. The Petitioner has also carried out necessary correction in the heading by indicating that these are Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Act. However, at the bottom relating to the prayer, the correction has not been carried out and it appears that the copy served on the Respondents also does not contain the correction. It does not mean that the Revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. In any case, if the Revision Petitions have been filed within the time by quoting a wrong provision of law, there are no fetters on the part of the Court to treat them as Revisions filed under the correct provision of law. Therefore, the first contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents is liable to be rejected. 11. Regarding the second contention, it is seen that the Appellate Authority certainly has powers to grant stay under Section 23(2). The power to grant an interim order is discretionary. However, the exercise of the discretion, must actually follow some rationale. In this case, the only reason stated by the Appellate Authority is that the fixation of fair rent had not attained finality on this simple ground, the Appellate Authority was not entitled to grant a blanket unconditional order to stay. A Court which is empowered to grant an interim relief, is always entitled as well as obliged to impose such conditions as it may deem fit, in the interest of justice, so that the party enjoying the benefit of stay is also put on terms. The Appellate Authority does not appear to have applied its mind on this aspect and has simply granted a stay order without referring to the facts on record. The Appellate Authority does not appear to have applied its mind on this aspect and has simply granted a stay order without referring to the facts on record. Therefore, the second contention that Section 23(2) gives a veto power for the Appellate Authority to grant a blanker stay, cannot be accepted. 12. Coming to the third contention that the order fixing the fair rent did not attain finality, it is seen that such a proposition applies only when a Tenant is accused of committing willful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of an Appeal or a Revision, arising out of Fair Rent Proceedings, this Court as well as the Supreme Court has held that a Tenant cannot be accused of committing willful default for not paying the fair rent fixed by the Court of first instance. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondents viz., in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarta and another, 1975 (1) SCC 858 ; Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, 1978 (2) SCC 573 ; Sakthi and Company; through its Partner, Veeranan v. Desigachary, 1996 (1) CTC 476 : 1996 (2) LW 100 ; and V. Janaki v. Azimunnisa Begum, 1998 (2) MLJ 482 , are only for the proposition that there cannot be an allegation of willful default and also for the proposition that a Petition under Section 11(4), cannot be initiated until the proceedings for fixation of fair rent attained finality. These decisions do not help the Respondents to sustain a blanket unconditional order of stay. 13. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, even according to the Engineer’s Report filed by the Respondents, the fair rent for the premises would workout to Rs.3,506/-per month for each of the portions. Therefore, the Appellate Authority could have at least directed a portion of that amount to be deposited into Court as a condition for the grant of stay. 14. The learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the Engineer is not entitled under the Act to fix the fair rent and that the Engineer’s Report was not accepted by the Respondents. I am unable to accept such a contention for the simple reason that if the Respondents were not relying upon the Report of their own Engineer, they need not have marked the documents as a piece of evidence. I am unable to accept such a contention for the simple reason that if the Respondents were not relying upon the Report of their own Engineer, they need not have marked the documents as a piece of evidence. It is true that the Engineer’s Report is not an encyclopedia or need not be taken to be the biblical truth. But it can at least for a foundation while deciding an Application for the grant of stay. In such circumstances, I am unable to sustain the grant of a blanket stay by the Appellate Authority. Therefore all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, the order of interim stay granted by the Appellant Authority in M.P.Nos.407, 408 & 409 of 2007 in R.C.A.Nos.304, 305 & 306 of 2007 are set aside. The Petitioner for stay M.P.Nos.407, 408 & 409 of 2007 shall stand allowed and there will be an order of inter is stay in favour of the Respondents subject to the condition that the Respondents deposit a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month from the date of filing of the Appeal in R.C.A.Nos.304, 305 & 306 of 2007 viz., January 2007. The arrears arising out of the different, from January 2007 upto November 2008 shall be deposited by the Respondents, on or before 31.12.2008 before the Appellate Authority. In respect of future rents, the Respondents shall pay the admitted rent directly to the Petitioner and shall deposit the balance amount to the credit of R.C.A. Nos.304, 305 & 306 of 2007, on or before 10th of every succeeding English Calendar month, commencing from December 2008 onwards. The failure of the Respondents to comply with anyone of the above conditions would result in the interim stay granted being automatically vacated. 15. The Civil Revision Petitions are allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.