Judgment :- 1. These revisions arise out of the common order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.568 of 2013 and RCA No.235 of 2014, confirming the order of the Rent Controller passed in RCOP No.1578 of 2011 and in M.P.No.492 of 2012 in RCOP No.1578 of 2011, dated 01.08.2013. 2. The respondent/landlady initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner in RCOP No.1578 of 2011 under section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 contending that the tenant has neglected to pay the rent from October 2010 and after adjusting the advance amount and retaining a one month rent and the tenant has committed default in the payment of rent from the month of May 2011 onwards till filing of the petition i.e., on 17.08.2011. 3. The tenant resisted the eviction petition stating that the agreed rent is Rs.33,000/- per month and he had paid Rs.3,30,000/- towards advance at the time of inception of the tenancy on 01.02.2008. Originally, Mr.George Mathew, the Power Agent of Mr.Jacob Verghese agreed to sell the property to the tenant at Rs.1,20,00,000/- and received Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance in cash and thereafter, the tenant had also spent Rs.8,00,000/- towards repairing the building and for modification of the kitchen. However, without informing the tenant, the property was sold to the present landlady. 4. The tenant has further stated that there is no willful default as alleged by the landlady, but to show her bona fide, she tendered Rs.1,98,000/- on 21.11.2011 and prayed for the dismissal of the eviction petition. 5. The landlady filed M.P.No.492 of 2012 in the eviction petition under section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for direction, directing the tenant to pay Rs.3,96,000/- being the arrears of rent from November 2011 to October 2012. 6. The application was opposed by the tenant stating that there is no arrears of rent. The Rent Controller, by order, dated 01.08.2013, directed the tenant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.6,60,000/- for the period from November 2011 to June 2013 on or before 29.09.2013. Due to non-compliance of the order, the Rent Controller allowed M.P.No.492 of 2012 on 30.08.2013 and ordered eviction in RCOP No.1578 of 2011. 7. The Rent Controller, by order, dated 01.08.2013, directed the tenant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.6,60,000/- for the period from November 2011 to June 2013 on or before 29.09.2013. Due to non-compliance of the order, the Rent Controller allowed M.P.No.492 of 2012 on 30.08.2013 and ordered eviction in RCOP No.1578 of 2011. 7. Aggrieved over the orders of the Rent Controller, the tenant had preferred two appeals in RCA No.568 of 2013 against the order passed in RCOP No.1578 of 2011 and RCA No.235 of 2014 against the order passed in M.P.No.492 of 2012. 8. The Appellate Authority having found that the tenant has not paid the rent, even after the filing of the eviction petition and also during the pendency of the Rent Control appeal, dismissed both the appeals. Challenging the order, the present revisions are filed before this court by the tenant. 9. Mr.C.A.Theagarajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submitted that originally Mr.George Mathew, the Power Agent of the landlord had agreed to sell the property to the tenant and also received Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance and on that basis, the tenant has also spent Rs.8,00,000/- towards repairing charges and petitioner/tenant has categorically stated the above facts in the counter, but the authorities, without considering those aspects, allowed the petition filed under section 11(3) of the Act, directing the tenant to deposit Rs.6,60,000/-, which is patently illegal. The authorities, by ordering eviction, caused great injustice and resulted in miscarriage of justice, the petitioner has put to miserable hardship by the order of the courts below. 10. Per contra, Mr.P.B.Ramanujam, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that the relationship of the parties and the quantum of rent are not in dispute and further admittedly, the tenant has not paid rent, even after the initiation of the eviction proceedings on the ground of willful default. So, the default has to be construed as willful default. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that the tenant has not produced any document to show that he paid Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance to the erstwhile landowner and also not even piece of evidence produced for the alleged expenses of Rs.8,00,000/- for the modification of the kitchen etc. So without producing any document, there cannot be adjustment of Rs.8,00,000/- towards arrears of rent. 12. So without producing any document, there cannot be adjustment of Rs.8,00,000/- towards arrears of rent. 12. The learned counsel further submitted that after the adjustment of the advance amount and the amount paid by the tenant during the pendency of the eviction petition, the arrears of rents payable by the petitioner/tenant as on January 2015 comes to Rs.11,87,000/- and prays for rejection of the revision petitions. 13. In the case of hand, the tenant had specifically admitted in his counter that the rent was fixed at Rs.33,000/- per month and he has paid Rs.3,30,000/- towards advance. The landlady had purchased the tenanted premises through a registered sale deed, dated 17.03.2011 bearing document No.589 of 2011. The sale of the property was duly intimated through a registered letter, dated 24.06.2011 to the tenant by the present landlady and by letter, dated 22.06.2011 by the erstwhile owner. 14. The tenant has mainly contended that the erstwhile owner had agreed to sell the petition mentioned property for Rs.1,20,00,000/- and also received Rs.5,00,000/- as advance in cash and thereafter, the tenant had spent Rs.8,00,000/- towards repairs and for modification of kitchen. 15. Indisputably, the tenant has not produced any material, either for agreement of sale or for renovation of the petition premises. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the total amount of Rs.13,00,000/- paid towards advance and for repairing charges, has to be adjusted for the rent cannot be countenanced. 16. It it settled law that the Rent Controller has power to issue direction to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent under sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act, even though the tenant disputes the jural relationship of the parties and the quantum of the rent. 17. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties and the quantum of rent. The Rent Controller has rightly directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. The Appellate Authority having found that despite providing amble opportunity, the tenant has not complied with the conditional order, dismissed the appeals. 18. In the light of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the default committed by the tenant would amounts to willful default. The Rent Controller has rightly ordered eviction under section 11(4) of the Act and the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 18. In the light of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the default committed by the tenant would amounts to willful default. The Rent Controller has rightly ordered eviction under section 11(4) of the Act and the order of the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the courts below. 19. In the result, the revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession to the landlady on or before 30.06.2015 and he shall pay the rent at the rate of Rs.33,000/- per month from the month of March 2015, on or before 5th of every month till 30.06.2015.