JUDGMENT 1. Heard both sides. 2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1177 of 2012, would run thus: The landlord-Hariharan filed R.C.O.P.No.60 of 2008. During the pendency of that, I.A.No.59 of 2012 was filed by the tenant for production of documents by the landlord. On that, an order was passed by the Rent Controller which went against the tenant, whereupon, the CRP No.1177 of 2012 has been focussed invoking Section 115 of CPC. 3. At this juncture, I would like to fumigate my mind with the decision of this Court in Durairaj and others v. Venugopal and another reported in 2012-3-L.W. 807. Absolutely, there is no material for invoking Section 115 of CPC. If at all the revision petitioner is aggrieved, he has to file an appeal under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The time taken for prosecuting this revision shall stand excluded in computing the period for filing appeal. 4. Regarding C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1501 of 2012, which is focussed as against the RCOP No.41 of 2012 filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant on his default in paying rent pending the earlier RCOP No.60 of 2008, the revision petitioner would contend that such subsequent filing of RCOP is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court warranting quashment by invoking Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. I would like to once again refer to the same precedent cited supra and also the provisions of the Rent Control Act. If at all the tenant is aggrieved, he should approach only the appellate forum under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, only. However, in respect of the plea of the tenant regarding the maintainability of RCOP No.41 of 2012 is concerned, it is for him to file necessary application before the Rent Controller and seek remedy. 5. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.