ORDER
Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. The petitioners in these six. revisions are tenants within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
2. The respondent is their landlord within the meaning of the Act. The landlord obtained orders of eviction Ex Parte against the tenants. The tenants filed applications to set aside the Ex Parte orders, The landlord filed applications under Section 11 of the Act, calling upon the tenants to deposit the rents. The Controller allowed these applications and at the same time dismissed the application filed by the tenants to set aside the Ex Parte orders of eviction. The tenants preferred appeals as against these orders and the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeals. These revisions are directed against the orders of the Appellate Authority.
3. Mr. G. Devadoss, learned Counsel for the tenants-petitioners, herein, would submit that the invocation of Section 11 of the Act by the landlord-respondent herein was incompetent because there was no application for eviction as such pending before the Controller and already orders for eviction have been passed in the applications concerned and the tenants have only moved the Controller for setting aside the orders of eviction passed Ex Parte and hence, the Controller ought not to have allowed the application taken out by the landlord under Section 11 of the Act and for non-compliance with such orders, the Controller ought not to have dismissed the applications of the tenants to set aside the Ex Parte orders of eviction and the Appellate Authority has not appreciated the legal aspect of he matter.
4. On going through Section 11 of the Act, I have to concur with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the tenants, Section 11 of the Act contemplates a contest of an application for eviction by a tenant. Here, the contest as such has been given a quietus by the orders of eviction passed Ex Parte. Only after the applications to set aside the orders of eviction passed Ex Parte are allowed and the applications for eviction stand restored and thereafter the tenants are to contest such applications, the contingency for invocation of Section 11 of the Act would arise. The above being the implication of Section 11 of the Act, there is no warrant for the landlord to invoke that provision and equally so, the Controller was not competent to countenance the applications taken out by the landlord in this behalf. In this view. I could not uphold the decisions of the two forums below. Hence, these revisions are allowed. The applications taken out by the landlord under Section 11 of the Act will stand dismissed and the applications taken out by the tenants to set aside the orders of eviction passed Ex Parte will stand restored to the file of the Controller who shall deal with them on merits. I make no order as to costs.