1. Though no doubt the petitioners before me who are the tenants can successfully challenge the order of the appellate authority for the reason that the appellate authority relied on a decision which has since been overruled by this court, yet the case has taken a different turn in the course of the proceedings and therefore it has become necessary for me to state a few facts. The landlord sought for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that he wanted the premises in his occupation for his own non-residential purposes. The landlord's case was that he was expanding his business and therefore there was necessity for the request. It is a common ground however that the landlord was carrying on a business of his own in a building of his own. The Rent Controller would not grant the request. But the appellate authority relied upon a decision of this court in Abdul Khader v. Hussain Ali, : (1962)2MLJ446 and Nataraja Asari v. Balasubramaniam : (1957)2MLJ492 . These have been overruled by a Division Bench of our court in L. Chettiar v. Subbarayan, : AIR1971Mad163 . But it appears that another Division Bench of our court took a different view. But in the light of the conclusion which I intend reaching, it is not necessary for me to go further on this question. Prima facie, and on the reasoning of the decision in L. Chettiar v. Subbarayan, : AIR1971Mad163 , the petitioners are entitled to succeed. In the course of the hearing of the case, the landlord respondent filed two applications in these two revision petitions seeking for stay of all further proceedings since the petitioner in each of these cases has failed to pay the rent due in the course of the hearing. That the petitioners have fallen into arrears in the matter of payment of the rent is not in dispute. But what is said is that the respondent has already filed a suit for the recovery of the same and therefore the impact of Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act need not be invoked, in the particular circumstances of the case. The second argument is that such a contention can be raised only before the Rent Controller or the appellate authority and not in the High Court when it is exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act.
2. In so far as the last contention is concerned, I am of the view that as the High Court is exercising jurisdiction under the very Act and as it has been vested with such jurisdiction under it, it has a right to invoke each and every provision of the said Act for the purposes of a successful conclusion of the hearing and also for the purpose of rendering justice as between the parties in accordance with the codified law as set out in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. One such provision in the Act is the right vested in the Rent Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, to stop further proceedings and made an order directing the defaulting tenant who fails to pay rent to put the landlord in possession of the building. As in my view, such jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court as well while it deals with revision petitions under Section 25, the argument of Mr. Balakrishnan that this court cannot entertain the application under Section 11 made by the landlord at the revisional stage is not impressive and I am unable to accept it.
3. As regards the information brought to the notice of this court by the application made before me under Section 11, that the petitioners-tenants have failed to pay or deposit the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord, there is no dispute regarding such accumulation of arrears. There is certainly no dispute that such arrears of rent have not been paid. The petitioners were given ample opportunities to pay rent or otherwise to show sufficient cause for compelling the court not to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 11(4). The tenant in each of these revision petitions has not availed himself of the said opportunity given by this court. The position therefore is that the petitioners are in arrears of rent and they have not shown sufficient cause for such non-payment of rent. In those circumstances, in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on this court under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960, all further proceedings are stopped. The result is that the petitioner in each of these revision petitions is directed to put the landlord in possession of portion of the building in their occupation. The revision petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the petitioners requested for some time to deliver vacant possession. Each of the petitioners are granted three months time to vacate.
4. Petitions dismissed.