Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the original suit filed this revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2005 in C.M.A.No.32 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Namakkal, confirming the decreetal order dated 21.07.2003 in I.A.No.340/2003 in O.S.No.146 of 2003 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondents. 3. The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.146/2003 seeking the relief to restrain the second respondent should not collect rent from revision petitioner and sent to the first respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner has filed I.A.No.340/2003 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for interim direction not to recover any amount from pension benefit by the 2nd respondent and sent to the 1st respondent. The trial court, after hearing both sides and also considered the legal position of Sections 84 and 88 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act 1961, finally held that the main suit itself is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and also the revision petitioner as a tenant wilfully defaulted in the payment of rent. Therefore, the trial court has dismissed the above said Interlocutory Application filed by the revision petitioner. Aggrieved over the above said order passed in Interlocutory Application, the revision petitioner has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A. No.32/2003. The first appellate Court has dismissed the above said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the revision petitioner has filed this revision petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner, due to illness voluntarily retired from service and the Government is having right to reduce the rent even after retirement from service and therefore, the suit has been filed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the respondents are not entitled to the recovery of entire pension amount in view of the Rule 9(7) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, in which, the respondents are entitled to recover from pension only not more than 1/3rd of pension amount. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that the respondents are not entitled to the recovery of entire pension amount in view of the Rule 9(7) of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, in which, the respondents are entitled to recover from pension only not more than 1/3rd of pension amount. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even though the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant relief as prayed for in the plaint, this Court has granted permission to withdraw the above said suit and approach the concerned authorities by way of appeal against that order. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial court has correctly discussed the provisions of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act under Sections 84 and 88 and also not paid as per agreement, wilfully defaulted in payment of rent as agreed by the revision petitioner. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above said findings. 5. From both side submissions revealed that the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide this matter. Only the revision petitioner is entitled to seek relief by way of appeal. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner seeking permission to withdraw the suit and approach the concerned authorities. But, this Court is of the view that the revision petitioner should approach the trial court and take steps to withdraw the suit. Therefore, it is clear that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain in the main suit itself and the interim relief cannot be granted as prayed for by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner may approach the trial court for withdrawal of the above said suit and also seek relief of exemption of period of limitation. The trial court has to decide the above said questions, after hearing both sides and pass necessary orders on merits. 6. With the above directions, this revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.