Judgment 1. This Civil Revisionhas been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 112. 2008 made in R.C.A. No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub-Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the order and decretal order, dated 112. 2006 made in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu. 2. As per the impugned Judgment, dated 112. 2008 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, order and decretal order, dated 112. 2006 made in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller was confirmed and the Petitioner herein, who was the Appellant in the R.C.A. was directed to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the Petition premises to the Respondent/Landlord, within a period of one month from the date of the order and accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the Judgment, the Petitioner herein has preferred the Revision. 3. It is an admitted fact that the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2000 was filed by the Respondent/Landlord, against one S. Mohanraj and his brother Dillibabu, the Petitioner herein, seeking an order of eviction under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) & (b) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (herein after referred to as “the Act”). When the R.C.O.P. was pending, the Respondent/Landlord filed M.P. No.9 of 2002 under Section 11(4) of the Act, seeking an order to direct the First Respondent/tenant therein to pay the arrears of rent from June 2001 onwards at the rate of Rs.700/- per month within the date to be fixed by the learned Rent Controller and in default of compliance, to stop all further proceedings in the R.C.O.P. and to direct the Respondents therein to deliver vacant possession of the premises to the Landlord. According to the Respondent/Landlord, the Revision Petitioner herein was only an unauthorised sub-tenant inducted by the tenant, Mohanraj, the First Respondent in the R.C.O.P. There is a concurrent finding by the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the Petitioner is not the tenant under the Respondent/Landlord, but that was not challenged by the Petitioner by way of Revision. 4. 4. As per the order, dated 29.09.2003, learned Rent Controller directed the Respondent/tenant to pay the arrears of rent from June 2001 at the rate of Rs.700/- per month within a period of one moth from the date of the order and in default to vacate and hand over the premises to the Landlord, who is the Respondent herein. The First Respondent/tenant has not complied with the conditional order passed under Section 11(4) of the Act. 5. However, the Revision Petitioner, who was the Second Respondent in the R.C.O.P, filed a Petition in M.P. No.8 of 2002 in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000, seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent into the Court under Section 8(2) of the Act, but he was not permitted by the learned Rent Controller, on the ground he was not the tenant of the rental premises. In the R.C.O.P itself, the Respondent/Landlord has specifically stated in paragraph number 7, that only Mohanraj, the First Respondent therein was the tenant and he shifted his residence to Thirukazhukundram, another place and the rented premises was sub-let by him to his brother, the Petitioner herein, to carry on beedi business, contrary to the terms of the lease agreement, without the consent of the Landlord. 6. In the counter filed in M.P. No.8 of 2002, the Respondent/Landlord has specifically stated that the Petitioner, who is not the tenant under the Respondent/Landlord was not entitled to deposit the arrears of rent, as per the order passed by the Rent Control Court, under Section 11(4) of the Act. Admittedly, the Petitioners herein has not challenged the order with supporting documents to establish his claim as tenant. 7. It is not in dispute that Miscellaneous Petition filed in M.P. No.8 of 2002 by the Petitioner herein, seeking permission to deposit the rent was dismissed and Petition filed by the Respondent/Landlord under Section 11(4) of the Act in M.P. No.9 of 2002 against Mohanraj and the Petitioner herein was allowed. Aggrieved by which, the Petitioner herein preferred R.C.A No.27 of 2003 and R.C.A. No.28 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority at Chengalpattu. R.C.A. No.29 of 2003 was filed by Mohanraj against the order and decretal order, dated 29.09.2003 passed in M.P. No.9 of 2002 in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Chengalpattu. 8. R.C.A. No.29 of 2003 was filed by Mohanraj against the order and decretal order, dated 29.09.2003 passed in M.P. No.9 of 2002 in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Chengalpattu. 8. After contest, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, by a common Judgment, dated 012. 2005 had dismissed the aforesaid three Rent Control Appeals preferred by the Petitioner herein and his brother, Mohanraj, confirming the orders passed by the Rent Controller, the same has not been challenged in the Civil Revision Petition by the Petitioner herein. Similarly, Mohanraj, the First Respondent/tenant has also not challenged the order passed against him in R.C.A. No.29 of 2003. These are all the undisputed facts. 9. Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the impugned Judgment, dated 112. 2008 was passed by the Court below, confirming the order, dated 112. 2006 passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000, violative of the Petitioner’s right, under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According to the learned Counsel, the Petitioner, who was the Second Respondent in the R.C.O.P. had filed a Petition seeking permission to deposit arrears of rent, as directed by the Rent Controller, however, the Petitioner herein was not permitted by the Court below to deposit the arrears of rent and the Respondent/Landlord had also refused to receive the rent, though rent was sent by the Petitioner by way of money order, hence, the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.14,700/- by way of lodgment schedule through State Bank of India, Chennai branch, however, that was not considered by the Courts below. With the above pleadings, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued for allowing the Civil Revision Petition. 10. Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner herein was not a tenant under the Respondent and only his brother Mohanraj, the First Respondent in the R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000 was the tenant. In the R.C.O.P. itself, the Respondent herein, being the Landlord has specifically stated that the First Respondent, Mohanraj was his tenant, who had shifted his residence to Thirukazhukundram, another village and sub-let the premises to his brother, the Revision Petitioner herein to carry on beedi business in the Petition premises, contrary to the terms of the lease agreement. In the R.C.O.P. itself, the Respondent herein, being the Landlord has specifically stated that the First Respondent, Mohanraj was his tenant, who had shifted his residence to Thirukazhukundram, another village and sub-let the premises to his brother, the Revision Petitioner herein to carry on beedi business in the Petition premises, contrary to the terms of the lease agreement. The learned Senior Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the specific averments made on the aforesaid facts by the Respondent/Landlord in the Rent Control Original Petition. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent strenuously contended that the Petitioner herein, who was arrayed as Second Respondent in the R.C.O.P. has no locus standi to pay the arrears of rent, since he is not the tenant, but was inducted as sub-tenant by his brother Mohanraj, without the consent of the Respondent/Landlord. On the aforesaid reasons, the alleged rent sent by way of money order by the Petitioner herein, who is a third party was not received by the Respondent/Landlord, but returned. The learned Senior Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the findings of the Court below available in the common Judgment, dated 012. 2005 at paragraph number 19, which reads as follows: “As borne out by the documents in Ex-P5 and Ex-P6 now marked in M.P. No.9 of 2002, the First Respondent alone is tenant under the Petitioner and the Petitioner is bound to receive the rent only from him. The Petitioner has right to refuse the rent from the Second Respondent, as he is not the tenant under him. Further, there are disputes relating to the payment of rent from July 2001. The learned Rent Controller has correctly come to the conclusion that the First Respondent has been in arrears of rent from June 2001 onwards.” The common Judgment, dated 012. 2005 made in R.C.A. No.27 of 2003, R.C.A. No.28 of 2003 and R.C.A. No.29 of 2003 are not under challenge. 12. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed in M.P. No.9 of 2002 in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000, Execution Petition was filed by the Respondent/Landlord, under Order 21, Rule 11, C.P.C., being the decree-holder. 2005 made in R.C.A. No.27 of 2003, R.C.A. No.28 of 2003 and R.C.A. No.29 of 2003 are not under challenge. 12. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order passed in M.P. No.9 of 2002 in R.C.O.P. No.8 of 2000, Execution Petition was filed by the Respondent/Landlord, under Order 21, Rule 11, C.P.C., being the decree-holder. On 05.06.2009, the tenant Mohanraj, who was the First Respondent in the E.P and R.C.O.P, appeared before the Executing Court and made an endorsement on the Execution Petition as follows: [TAMIL TEXT] 13. As per the endorsement made, Mohanraj, the First Respondent/tenant in the R.C.O.P. and also Respondent in the Execution Petition has made it clear that he had unconditionally agreed and consented to vacate the premises, pursuant to the orders passed by the Courts below and further, requested the Respondent/Landlord to drop the proceedings against him. 14. Pursuant to the said endorsement made by the First Respondent/tenant, the Executing Court passed an order recording the endorsement as follows: “R1 appeared in person and made an endorsement to vacate the premises unconditionally”. The said endorsement made by the First Respondent/tenant was recorded by the E.P. Court, by its order, dated 05.06.2009. 15. According to Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent, the Petitioner herein, who is not a tenant under the Respondent/Landlord has no locus standi to maintain the C.R.P and according to him, it is a clear abuse of process of the Court, as he is not a tenant under the Respondent/Landlord. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel cited the following decisions: 1. Maragathammal v. Kamalammal, 2006 (5) CTC 698 : 2007 (2) LW 503; 2. Mahaboob Basha, S.M v. M. Mohamed Ali and others, 2001 (1) LW 297 ; 3. Kumaresan v. Kewalchand, 2001 (2) CTC 490 : 2001 (2) MLJ 471 ; 4. Basil Products v. Mathuram Perumal, 1994 (1) MLJ 55 . 16. Per contra, Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the status of the Petitioner as tenant or not has to be decided only by the Rent Controller in the Rent Control Original Petition and hence, the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller, confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the status of the Petitioner as tenant or not has to be decided only by the Rent Controller in the Rent Control Original Petition and hence, the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller, confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision, Ved Prakash Wadhwa v. Vishwa Mohan, 1981 (3) SCC 667 . .17. As contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, if any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent, the Rent Controller or the Rent Control Appellate Authority, as the case may be shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make .an order directing the tenant to put the Landlord in possession of the building/premises. It is pertinent to note that the word ‘shall’ is employed under Section 11(4) of the Act, hence, as per the Act, learned Rent Controller is expected to put the Landlord in possession of the building, in case the tenant fails to pay or deposit the rental arrears, as directed by the Rent Controller or the Rent Control Appellate Authority, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary. It is well settled that the mandate of the legislature shall be complied with by ordering eviction of the tenant, when he failed to pay or deposit the rental arrears, as directed by the competent Court, under Section 11(4) of the Act. .18. In Maragathammal v. Kamalammal, 2006 (5) CTC 698 : 2007 (2) LW 503, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: .“14…The Respondent could have lodged this schedule on the very next day after the order dated 11. 1995 i.e. On 11. 1995 or within a day or two thereafter. We see no reason why she waited till the eve of 211. 1995, which was the last date of depositing the entire rent in Court. It is admitted that the Respondent-tenant has been deliberately avoiding the payment of the rent as and when it fell due…” 19. 1995 i.e. On 11. 1995 or within a day or two thereafter. We see no reason why she waited till the eve of 211. 1995, which was the last date of depositing the entire rent in Court. It is admitted that the Respondent-tenant has been deliberately avoiding the payment of the rent as and when it fell due…” 19. This Court in the decision, Kumaresan v. Kewalchand, 2001 (2) MLJ 471 , has dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by the tenant, who was in arrears of rent and failed to comply with the directions given by the Rent Controller under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In the aforesaid case, tenant remained ex parte and after the order of eviction, the tenant filed a Petition to set aside the ex parte order with a Petition to condone the delay and sought an order to set aside the ex parte order of eviction. In the said context, this Court held that normally Court should liberally construe the meaning of the term “sufficient cause” while exercising jurisdiction, on considering the Application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, however, considering the non-compliance of the order passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, this Court find it just and reasonable to reject the plea of the tenant and thereby the Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court. .20. In Basil Products v. Mathuram Perumal, 1994 (1) MLJ 55 , this Court held relying on various decisions of the Apex Court has held as follows: .“11…If that condition is not fulfilled, then automatically, the Miscellaneous Petition gets dismissed and in such a situation on Appeal could lie against the conditional order dated 20.03.1986 only. Therefore, it is clear that the above said Rent Control Appeal itself is not maintainable…” .21. In Mahaboob Basha, S.M. v. M. Mohamed Ali and others, 2001 (1) LW 297 , it has been held that if tenant is aggrieved by an order either because the time granted was short or the contentions were not accepted or he had asked to deposit an unreasonable amount, then he as right to challenge that order. Having failed to do so, he cannot take shelter under the second order and argue that it was an order that has to be challenged, ignoring the earlier order. Having failed to do so, he cannot take shelter under the second order and argue that it was an order that has to be challenged, ignoring the earlier order. Tenant having failed to prefer Appeal against that earlier order, is precluded from challenging the consequential order passed by the Court. In the instant case, admittedly the Petitioner, without challenging the earlier order passed by the Court below, cannot challenge the subsequent order and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable. 22. As per the Rent Control Original Petition, the Respondent/Landlord has clearly stated that Mohanraj, the First Respondent therein was the tenant under him and he was carrying on beedi business in the rented premises, however, he shifted his residence to Thirukazhukundram, another place and sub-let the premises to this brother, the Petitioner herein, without the consent of the Respondent/Landlord. In the counter filed by the Petitioner herein, he had stated that the Petitioner herein was not sub-tenant, but only a member of the family of Mohanraj. The First Respondent had also alleged some family arrangement, but that is not binding on the Respondent/Landlord, as it is only between the tenant Mohanraj and his brother and their other family members, since for the alleged family arrangement, the Respondent/Landlord was not a party. 23. The Courts below have concurrently held that only Mohanraj, brother of the Petitioner herein and the First Respondent in the R.C.O.P was the tenant. In the common Judgment, dated 012. 2005, considering the documents, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 marked in M.P. No.9 of 2002, the Court below has held that Mohanraj, the First Respondent in the R.C.O.P alone as tenant under the Respondent/Landlord. As the Petitioner herein was not the tenant, Respondent/Landlord was not bound to receive the rent, tendered by the Petitioners, who is a third party. It is an admitted fact that for the aforesaid common Judgment, dated 012. 2005 rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, both Mohanraj and the Petitioner herein were parties, however, the said common Judgment was not challenged for the reasons best known to them. 24. Mr. It is an admitted fact that for the aforesaid common Judgment, dated 012. 2005 rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, both Mohanraj and the Petitioner herein were parties, however, the said common Judgment was not challenged for the reasons best known to them. 24. Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the order passed under Section 11(4) of the Act was only an interim order, that need not be challenged by the Petitioner for maintaining this revision, however, I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention, since the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority have categorically held the core issue relating to this Civil Revision Petition against the Petitioner herein, holding that the Petitioner herein is not the tenant under the Respondent/Landlord. The said finding goes to the root of the case. Therefore, without any locus standi, one cannot protract any proceeding, by saying that the adverse order not challenged by him as an interim order, when there is no prima facie case in favour of the Revision Petitioner. 25. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R. Gandhi, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has categorically held that Mohanraj, the brother of the Revision Petitioner alone is the tenant under the Respondent herein and the Revision Petitioner is not a tenant under him and hence, the Respondent/Landlord has right to refuse the alleged rent tendered by the Revision Petitioner herein. Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has held that the Rent Controller has correctly come to the conclusion that the tenant, Mohanraj, brother of the Revision Petitioner herein has been in arrears of rent from June 2001 onwards. Admittedly against the aforesaid order and Judgment, passed concurrently by the competent Courts below, the Revision Petitioner was a party, however, he has not challenged the common Judgment. Therefore, the decision Mahabooob Basha, S.M. v. M. Mohamed Ali and others, 2001 (1) LW 297 is squarely applicable to the case on hand. Considering the facts and circumstances of this Revision Petition, I am unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner, since the interim order, which was not challenged, goes to the root of the case. 26. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner relying on the decision. Considering the facts and circumstances of this Revision Petition, I am unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner, since the interim order, which was not challenged, goes to the root of the case. 26. Learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner relying on the decision. Ved Prakash Wadhwa v. Vishwa Mohan, 1981 (3) SCC 667 , contended that the Revision Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.14,700/- towards the arrears of rent on 210. 2005 by way of lodgment through State Bank of India, Chennai. In that case referred to in the decision, the tenant was sought to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent and under the provisions under Section 20(4) of U.P. Rent Act, 1972 and it was held that if the tenant tendered the rent at the first hearing of the Suit, the decree for eviction could not be granted on the ground of default of payment of rent. 27. However, the aforesaid decision is not applicable to this case, since the Courts below have concurrently held that the Petitioner herein is not the tenant under the Respondent, only his brother is the tenant and that the Respondent/Landlord has right to refuse the rent tendered by the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Court below has passed common judgment, dated 012. 2005, on merits, based on evidence, however, that common Judgment was not challenged by the Petitioner herein. It is seen further from the available records that no mala fide intention has been attributed by the Revision Petitioner against his brother, the said Mohanraj, who made an endorsement before the Executing Court to vacate the premises. The Revision Petitioner cannot claim any independent right as tenant after the endorsement made by the tenant, the First Respondent in the R.C.O.P., based on the unsustainable defence of family arrangement claimed by him. 28. As contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Landlord, this Rent Control matter is pending for about 10 years, though, it is a Summary proceeding, as per law and the Respondent, who is the Petitioner in the R.C.O.P. has specifically stated that only Mohanraj, the brother of the Revision Petitioner alone is his tenant, who sub-let the premises to his brother, the same was not controverted by any prima facie material produced by the Revision Petitioner. It is a settled proposition of law that the oral averments made by a party will not impeach any documentary evidence or supersede an admission by a party. The Revision Petitioner, as Second Respondent in the R.C.O.P. has filed a counter, wherein at paragraph Number 6, he has stated as follows: “6. During 1985, the rental agreement was executed by the First Respondent, who is the elder brother of this Respondent, since he was managing the joint family.” It is not in dispute that the First Respondent in the R.C.O.P., who is the tenant appeared in person before the E.P. Court and made an endorsement to vacate the premises unconditionally, that was recorded by the E.P. Court by its order, dated 05.06.2009. 29. In the common Judgment, the Court below has made it clear that the Revision Petitioner is not the tenant under the Respondent/Landlord, only his brother Mohanraj is the tenant and hence, the Respondent/Landlord has right to refuse the rent tendered by the Petitioner, while confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, however, that Judgment was not challenged by the Revision Petitioner. Having failed to challenge the adverse findings of the competent Court, namely the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which goes to the root of the case, the Revision Petitioner cannot challenge the subsequent order, without any prima facie case. 30. It is a settled proposition of law that when there is a concurrent finding by the Courts below, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in Revision, unless the finding is found to be perverse. As the finding of the Courts below is based on evidence and further, the Revision Petitioner having been a party, failed to challenge the same, hence, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this case, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 31. The unauthorised deposit made by the Revision Petitioner, who is not the tenant under the Respondent cannot be construed as legal compliance of the conditional order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 11(4) of the Act, that was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 32. As rightly contended by Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent herein, in view of the earlier common Judgment, dated 012. 32. As rightly contended by Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent herein, in view of the earlier common Judgment, dated 012. 2005, it was held that the Petitioner herein is not the tenant, which goes to the root of the case, hence, the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner herein, challenging the subsequent order is also not legally sustainable and is liable to be dismissed. The plea of the Revision Petitioner, that his status, whether he is tenant or not has to be decided in the R.C.O.P. cannot hold water, as there is a concurrent finding by the Courts below, based on documentary evidence and not challenged by the Petitioner herein. Without challenging the earlier common Judgment rendered by the Court below, the Revision Petitioner cannot challenge the subsequent order, by raising a plea that he is the tenant against the concurrent finding of the Courts below, hence, the Revision fails, as no merits and on the facts and circumstances, it has to be construed as a vexatious litigation by the Respondent herein. 33. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. However, the Petitioner is permitted to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the Respondent/Landlord within two months from the date of this order, on condition that the Petitioner should file an undertaking affidavit within one week from the date of this order to vacate and hand over the possession of the premises to the Respondent/Landlord within a period of two months from the date of this order. If undertaking affidavit is not filed within one week, after receipt of a copy of the order, the Respondent/Landlord is entitled to proceed with the E.P. to get delivery of possession forthwith.