THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1504 of 2010 April 26, 2010 Between: Palumuri Suryanarayana … Petitioner-Tenant And Kalidindi Narasimharaju ... Respondent-Landlord THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1504 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent is the owner of a business premises (shop) bearing house No.25-2-3, Subbaraju Bhavan, T.S.No.453/3 situated at Narasimharaopet, Eluru. The same was let out to the petitioner for running a tailoring shop on a monthly rent of Rs.600/-. The rent is payable on or before fifth of every succeeding month. Alleging that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent for the months of September and October, 1999, and also alleging that the premises are required for commencement of business by the owner, R.C.C.No.52 of 1999 was filed. The Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Eluru, after conducting enquiry passed order dated 02.07.2002 directing eviction of the petitioner. Finding was recorded against him on both the grounds. Petitioner then filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.11 of 2002 under Section 20 of The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act). By the impugned order, dated 18.09.2009, the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge dismissed the appeal. In this civil revision petition, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts below erroneously cast burden of proof on the petitioner to prove that there was no default in payment of rent. He also contends that the respondent-landlord does not require the premises. These contentions are refuted by the counsel for the respondent. The submission that the burden of proof must not cast on the petitioner cannot be accepted. In rebuttal, the petitioner pleaded that the landlord refused to receive the rent for the month of September, 1999, and therefore, he sent the amount for two months by way of money order. The landlord again refused to receive the money order and therefore, there is no willful default. Even this aspect of the matter is legally unsustainable. It is well settled that when the landlord refuses to receive the rent, tenant is required to send a notice to the landlord requesting to intimate the particulars of the bank account, in which the amount has to be deposited. If there is no reply to such notice, the tenant can file an application under Section 8 of the Act read with Rule 5 of The Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1961. After obtaining order, the amount has to be deposited in the bank nominated by the Court. In this case, admittedly, petitioner did not comply with abovesaid procedure. In the absence of any compliance with the procedure, it cannot be held that the tenant has not committed default. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority appreciated the facts and law correctly and the questions of fact do not warrant any interference in the revision under Section 22 of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner-tenant requests that six months time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the petition schedule property as he has been running the shop in the premises for the last thirty years and eaking out livelihood. The Rent Control Case was filed in the year 1999 and it was disposed of by the Original Authority on 02.07.2002. Thereafter, the matter was pending before the Appellate Authority for about seven years. Thus, after the proceedings for eviction were initiated, the petitioner continued in the premises for more than eight years. Keeping this in view and also to enable the petitioner to vacate the business premises, three months time is granted to the petitioner from today on condition that he shall file an undertaking before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, within a week from today to the effect that he shall vacate the premises on or before 24.07.2010. It is needless to mention, the petitioner shall pay the arrears of rent and continue to pay the admitted rent till the premises is vacated. If the arrears are not paid, the portion of this order granting three months time for vacating the premises shall stand rescinded. The civil revision petition is dismissed with above observation. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 26, 2010 SUR