IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4019 OF 2009 Between:- M.Ravi Kumar …Petitioner A n d Smt.Shobha Katariya …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4019 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17-07-2009 in R.A.No.18 of 2009,on the file Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed, setting aside the order of the Principal Rent Controller in R.C.No.100 of 2008 dated 20-12-2008. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the tenant of the respondent in respect of the schedule premises, which is a mulgi situate in Sultan Baazar, Hyderabad. The petitioner filed R.C.No.100 of 2008 before the Rent Controller under Section 8(5) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, seeking permission to deposit the rent from September, 2007 to February, 2008 in a total sum of Rs.18,000/- at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and also the future rent. According to the petitioner, the rent was Rs.3,000/- per month and the respondent received the rent up to August, 2007 and subsequently refused to receive the rent from the month of September, 2007 in spite of the petitioner issuing a notice. He, therefore, seeks permission to deposit the rent into Court. 4. The respondent filed a counter admitting the tenancy and contending that originally the rent was Rs.3,000/- per month when the tenancy commenced from 20-12-1995 under a lease deed and as per the terms of the lease deed, the rent is to be enhanced by 10% every two years and by the date of filing of RC.No.100 of 2008 on 27-03-2008, the rent was Rs.7,560/-. According to the respondent, the petitioner was in arrears of rent from December, 2006 onwards at the rate of Rs.7,560/- and the arrears amounted to Rs.37,800/- and, therefore, the respondent issued a notice dated 19-04-2007 terminating the tenancy and as the petitioner did not vacate and failed to pay the arrears of rent, she got issued a notice on 17- 10-2007 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and subsequently filed O.S.No.2652 of 2007 for eviction and also arrears of rent. The respondent further pleaded that as the rent is more than Rs.3,500/-, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case. 5. Before the learned Rent Controller, no oral evidence was adduced by either parties, but Exs.P-1 to P- 18 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked on behalf of the respondent. 6. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 20-12-2008 allowed the application without prejudice to the contentions of both parties and permitted the petitioner to deposit the rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month for the period from September, 2007 to December, 2008. The learned Rent Controller has taken note of the fact of pendency of a suit O.S.No.2652 of 2007 between the parties and observed that the genuineness of the documents filed by both parties have to be examined at an appropriate time in the said suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein filed R.A.No.18 of 2009 and the learned Appellate Authority i.e., Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad by order dated 17-07-2009 allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order dated 20-12-2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.No.100 of 2008. In the said order, the learned Appellate Authority has held that the rent is more than Rs.3,500/- per month, but not as claimed by the petitioner and, therefore, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to permit the petitioner to deposit the rent into Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioner/tenant. 7. It is not disputed that after giving quit notice the respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.2652 of 2007 against the petitioner for eviction and also for recovery of arrears of rent and the said suit is pending. It is also not disputed that both parties have at the inception of the tenancy entered into an agreement of lease on 20-12-1995 whereunder the rent stipulated was Rs.3,000/- per month to be enhanced by 10% every two years. According to the petitioner, he has been paying the same rent at Rs.3,000/- per month even after expiry of original lease period in the year 2000. On the other hand, the respondent contends that the petitioner failed to pay the rent at the enhanced rate as agreed under the rent deed and, therefore, the petitioner fell in arrears of rent which amounted to Rs.37,800/-. According to the respondent, the rent payable by the date of filing of R.C.No.100 of 2008 was Rs.7,560/- per month, which is disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner complains that though he sent the rent @ Rs.3,000/- per month by money order, the respondent refused to receive the same. Exs.P-6 to P-8 are stated to be money order receipts showing remittance of rent purporting to be for the months of September, 2007 to December, 2007 and their refusal. According to the petitioner, he sent Rs.12,000/- by way of money order for a period of four months from September, 2007 to December, 2007 @ Rs.3,000/- per month. Exs.P- 6 to P-8 do not, however, disclose the amount remitted thereunder nor the date of remittance. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that under Exs.P-6 to P-8 the petitioner sent rent only for three months @ Rs.4,000/- per month. In the notice Ex.P-12 dated 29-02-2008 got issued by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner was constrained to send money order on 28-12-2007 for Rs.12,000/- for the months of September, 2007 to December, 2007. Admittedly, the monthly rent is payable in the succeeding month. If that is so, the question of remitting the rent for the month of December, 2007 on 28-12-2007 itself even before the expiry of the month, does not arise. Under Ex.P-12, the petitioner sought to send five months rent from September, 2007 to January, 2008 on 29-02-2008 @ Rs.3,000/- per month. When the rent was payable and was offered to them @ Rs.3,000/- per month only in the succeeding month, it is hard to believe that the rent for December, 2007 was sent by money order even before the end of the said month. 8. The quantum of rent is disputed. As alleged by the petitioner, he has been paying only @ Rs.3,000/- per month and the respondent has been contending that the rent is payable at the enhanced rate every two years as per the agreement and the petitioner paid accordingly for certain period and subsequently fell in arrears. 9. The question as to whether or not the petitioner committed willful default in payment of the rents and whether or not is liable to be evicted, are matters to be considered in the suit O.S.No.2652 of 2007, which is pending. The fact remains that it is only after filing of the said suit that the petitioner has come forward with R.C.No.100 of 2008 seeking permission to deposit the rent at Rs.3,000/- per month. As rightly observed by the learned Appellate Authority, the material on record prima facie shows that the rent was certainly more than Rs.3,500/- per month, but not Rs.3,000/-, as claimed by the petitioner. In that event, the learned Rent Controller certainly had no jurisdiction to permit the petitioner to deposit the rent into Court. The question of permitting the petitioner to deposit the rent without prejudice to the contentions, does not arise in the present case, as the learned Rent Controller did not have any jurisdiction even to entertain the application. 10. The impugned order of the learned Appellate Authority, setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th December, 2009 Lrkm.