It is stated that the appellants paid a sum of Rs.
Since the order dated 23.7.90 remained number complied, the Rent Controller by an order dated 7.8.90 passed an order for eviction of the tenant.
After purchasing the aforesaid premises the purchaser who became the landlord of the premises filed a suit on 27.8.87 for ejectment of the tenant appellant on various grounds, including the default in payment of arrears of rent for a period beginning from 12.11.86 to 31.7.87.
Since one of the grounds for ejectment was default in payment of rent, the Rent Controller on 23.7.1990 passed an order under Sub section 1 of Section 11 of the Act directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent by 3.8.90.
The tenants subsequent deposit of the arrears of rent before the appellate authority being requirement of law for hearing the appeal on merits, cannot be treated as bona fide deposit.
On 22.8.90, the tenant deposited the arrears of rent before the appellate authority as the said deposit was companydition precedent for the appeal being heard on merits.
3195 3196/93.
The subsequent purchaser, namely, the respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred Civil Revision Petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Madras which were numbered as Civil Revision Petition Nos.
On 29th August, 1986 the tenant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement referred to above.
But the arrears of rent were number deposited by that date.
While the aforesaid suit was pending, the Church on 12.11.86 executed a sale deed in respect of premises in dispute in favour of first respondent, namely, V.P. Venuguduswami.
Further, the tenant did number deposit the month to month rent as required under section 11 1 of the Act and reiterated his stand that he is a landlord and number a tenant of the premises in dispute.
The tenant did number companyply the order dated 23.7.1990.
The tenant preferred two separate appeals, one of which was directed against the order dated 23.7.90 and the other related to the order dated 7.8.90.
On the companytrary, the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant before the Rent Controller.
3 lakhs towards the part payment of companysideration amount under the said agreement.
It further appears that subsequently certain disputes arose with regard to the mode of payment of the balance amount and as a result of which on 12th April, 1984 the Church repudiated the agreement.
On 7.8.1990, when the order of eviction was passed, numberapplication was moved by the tenant before the Rent Controller for revoking the order striking out defence as he companyld number deposit the arrears of rent on account of reasons beyond his companytrol.
It appears that on 6th October, 1982 the tenant entered into an agreement with erstwhile owner of the building, namely, the Church of South India Trust Association for purchase of the premises in dispute.
N.KHARE, J. The appellants herein are the tenants hereinafter referred to as the tenant .
It is number disputed that the premises in dispute is governed by The Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
