THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3967 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the tenant in respect of a non- residential premises owned by the deceased-1st respondent at Chirala. The tenancy commenced in the year 2003 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. Alleging that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents and that the premises are needed for his bona fide requirement, the 1st respondent filed R.C.C.No.5 of 2008 before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner, on the other hand, filed O.S.No.59 of 2008 in the same Court for injunction, against the 1st respondent and the latter in turn filed a counter claim in that. During the pendency of the R.C.C., the 1st respondent died and his wife and son, respondents 2 and 3 respectively, were brought on record. Even after the R.C.C. was filed, the petitioner failed to deposit the rents. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3 filed I.A.No.1828 of 2009 under Section 11(4) of the Act. The plea of the petitioner was that when he sent the rent through Money Order and the respondents refused to receive the same, he opened an account in ING Vysya Bank and started depositing the rents. That plea was not accepted by the trial Court, particularly in view of the fact that the account was not in the name of the respondents much less the particulars of deposit were placed before it. The trial Court passed an order dated 09.11.2010 directing that the petitioner shall handover the vacant possession of the premises within three months from the date of the order. The petitioner did not comply with the said order nor challenged it in any superior Forum. Respondents 2 and 3 filed E.P.No.31 of 2011 for execution of the said order. The application was opposed by the petitioner by raising an objection as to the very maintainability. The executing Court passed an order, dated 01.08.201 directing eviction of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very finding that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent is untenable in law. He further submits that the E.P. was not maintainable, since the proceedings under Section 15 of the Act can be initiated only for enforcement of the orders passed under Sections 10,12,13 and 14 of the Act. He further submits that the executing Court did not discuss the plea raised by the petitioner, in particular, as to the non- existence of any default. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner suffered an order under Section 11(4) of the Act and neither he vacated the premises nor challenged the proceedings in any other Forum. He further submits that this Court repeatedly held that an application under Section 15 of the Act is maintainable to enforce the order under Section 11 of the Act. The respondents initiated the proceedings against the petitioner for eviction by taking the plea of wilful default in payment of rents and bona fide requirement of the premises. Whatever may be the truth or otherwise of the plea of the respondents as to the default committed by the petitioner, before the R.C.C. was filed, it is not in dispute that the petitioner did not pay the rents to the respondents subsequent to the filing of the R.C.C. That in turn necessitated the respondents to file an application under Section 11 of the Act being I.A.No.1828 of 2009. The petitioner resisted the application by stating that he has either deposited the rents to the credit of the R.C.C., or that he has otherwise made the payment. The main plea was that he opened an account in ING Vysya Bank and started depositing the rents. Any bona fide attempt could have been to file an application under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act in that very R.C.C., or to require the respondents to furnish an account, so that the rents can be deposited. Without taking any such steps, the petitioner has opened an account in a Bank and started depositing the rents. He did not even furnish the particulars before the Court. It obviously means that he started depositing the rents to the credit of his own account. There cannot be a better attempt than this, to deceive the Courts. Ultimately an order ensued on 09.11.2010, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within three months. The petitioner did not choose to challenge this order. Thereupon, the respondents filed the E.P. It may be true that an order under Section 11(4) of the Act stands on a footing, different from the one on which the order under Sections 10, 12, 13 and 14 stand. However, the consequence of these orders is only to require the tenant to vacate and deliver possession of the premises. I n Bibijan vs. Chintakridi Narasimham & Sons[1], this Court categorically held that an application under Section 15 of the Act can be maintained to enforce an order passed under Section 11(4) of the Act. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 16.09.0211 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3967 of 2011 Date: 16.09.2011 JSU [1] 1997(6) ALT 124