Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the VI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority), (VII Judge Incharge), in M.P.No.7 of 2011 in R.C.A.No.1397 of 2004, this civil revision is filed. 2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: (i) The respondent herein/landlord filed the RCOP No.552 of 2003 for evicting the revision petitioners herein/tenants on the ground of sub-letting the premises and it was ordered, as against which, R.C.A.No.1397 of 2004 was filed. (ii) During the pendency of the RCA, M.P.No.7 of 2011 was filed by the respondent herein/landlord for issuing direction to the tenants to pay the rent. Whereupon, the appellate forum under the Rent Control Act, passed the order, the operative portion of which would run thus: "15. In the result, the 1st respondent/1st appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,89,925/- which is due upto December 2010 and also directed to pay the fair rent @ Rs.12,375/- p.m. for 14 months from January 2011 to February 2012 amounting to 1,73,250/- totalling a sum of Rs.14,63,175/-to the petitioner on or before 9.4.2012, failing which all further proceedings in RCA will be stopped." 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid mandate, this revision is focused on various grounds. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court. 6. Both sides in unison would detail and delineate the facts to the effect that earlier one RCOP was filed by the landlord concerned for getting the fair rent fixed and the matter was litigated up to the High Court and ultimately, this Court fixed the fair rent in a sum of Rs.12,375/- payable by the tenant with effect from January 2011. 7. Taking into account the said amount, the appellate Court, as aforesaid, mandated the tenant to pay the said arrears to the landlord. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners herein/tenants in all fairness would submit that absolutely he could see no perversity or illegality in the said order, but the amount being huge, his client is finding it difficult to pay at once and he prays for 12 weeks' time to pay, as per the order of the appellate Court. 9. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners herein/tenants in all fairness would submit that absolutely he could see no perversity or illegality in the said order, but the amount being huge, his client is finding it difficult to pay at once and he prays for 12 weeks' time to pay, as per the order of the appellate Court. 9. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent herein/landlord would oppose the same on the ground that this is a long pending matter. 10. Taking into account the hugeness of the amount to be paid by the tenant to the landlord, I am of the view that six weeks' time from this date could be granted to the revision petitioners/tenants to pay to the landlord the entire amount as per the order of the appellate Court and accordingly, it is ordered. If there is any default, then the appellate Court's order shall come into force at once without any further order. 11. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.