Judgment : M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. Mr. S. Ragunathan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was the applicant before the learned single Judge, challenging the order passed in dismissing the said application. 3. We have perused the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appellant, being the tenant, had filed an application seeking to invoke the provisions of Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. The said application was dismissed by the learned single Judge, in view of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the issue had already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2011 [5] LTL 437 [Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., v. R.Ravikrishnan]. Thereafter, this appeal has been preferred on the ground that even at the time of making the said submission, on the very same issue, the appellant had approached the Honbl'e Apex Court, in which an order of status quo was granted in S.L.P. [Civil] Nos.34330, 34839, 34945 of 2011. 4. We are afraid that the said fact, as narrated, does not give rise for filing an appeal before this Court. The only remedy open to the appellant, in such an eventuality, is to make an appropriate application before the learned single Judge explaining the circumstances under which the submission was made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, resulting in the dismissal of the application. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, giving liberty to the appellant to file such application before the learned single Judge, in the manner known to law. We make it clear that the respondents are at liberty to raise all the contentions before the learned single Judge, if such an application is filed. We also make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. No costs. M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed.