IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4812 OF 2006 Between : Devathi Venkata Naga Suseela ....PETITIONER A N D Kokku Kanaka Latha …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4812 OF 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1960, ( for short “the Act”) is directed against the order, dated 02.08.2006, passed in R.C.C.M.A.No.57 of 2002, on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby, the dismissal order dated 29.10.2001, passed in R.C.C.No.89 of 1999, on the file of Rent controller, Vijayawada, was set aside, and the petitioner herein was directed to vacate the petition schedule premises within two months from the date of the order. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent herein filed a petition in R.C.C.No.89 of 1999, under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act, seeking a direction to the respondents therein to vacate the petition schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to her. The learned Rent Controller, Vijayawada, by order dated 29.10.2001, dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent herein filed R.C.C.M.A.No.57 of 2002 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, and the said petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein, who is respondent No.2 in R.C.C.No. 89 of 1999 filed the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. The parties, hereinafter, will be referred to as they are arrayed in R.C.C.No.89 of 1999, for the sake of convenience. 4. The petitioner sought for vacation of the respondents from the petition schedule premises on two grounds, one for willful default and another for sub-lease. Her specific case is that she is the owner of the petition schedule premises and that the father of the first respondent had taken the premises on lease and after his death the mother of the first respondent continued as tenant for some time, and subsequently after her death, the first respondent was the tenant, who sub-let the petition schedule property to the second respondent unauthorizedly. It is also her case that the second respondent has been continuing in possession of premises, without paying any rent from March 1998 onwards. 5. The first respondent filed counter stating that his father never took the premises on lease and there is no relationship between the first respondent and the petitioner as tenant and landlord. 6. The second respondent filed counter and her specific case is that she had taken the schedule premises from the husband of the petitioner on lease in the year 1989, and subsequently after the death of the husband of the petitioner, she has been paying the rents to the petitioner. It is also her case that when she was offering rent for June, 1998, in the month of July, 1998, the petitioner demanded her to enhance the rent from Rs.900/- to Rs.1300/- for which she did not agree and then the petitioner threatened her to vacate the petition schedule premises and therefore, she filed the suit in O.S.No.1266 of 1998, seeking permanent injunction, and that subsequently she has paid the rent to the petitioner and that the petitioner also received the same on the advice of elders and that she received the rents upto January, 1999. But, however, when the petitioner refused to receive the rent from February, 1999, she issued notice to the petitioner to intimate the bank account to deposit the rents and the said notice was returned by the petitioner, and then she filed R.C.C.No.62 of 1999, seeking permission to deposit the rent into the Court from February, 1999, and that from February, 1999 onwards, she has been depositing the rents into the Court without fail. 7. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself examined as PW-1. But no documents were marked. R-1 was examined as RW-1. One D.Singaiah was examined as RW-2 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B- 4. 8. The learned Rent Controller did not accept the contention of the petitioner that the first respondent had given the premises on sub- lease to the second respondent; that the second respondent is a tenant; that since the second respondent has been depositing the rent in R.C.C.No.62 of 1999, there is no willful default committed by the second respondent. 9. In the Rent Appeal, the appellate authority held that in O.S.No.1266 of 1998, the second respondent has wrongly shown the name of the petitioner as ‘Koppa Kanka Lakshmi’ instead of ‘Kanaka Latha’; and that the second respondent also shown the name of the petitioner as ‘Kanaka Lakshmi’ in R.C.C.No.62 of 1999 instead of ‘Kanaka Latha’. It was further observed by the appellate Court that the petitioner in her counter specifically mentioned that her name is wrongly described as ‘Kanaka Lakshmi’ and despite filing the said counter by the petitioner, the second respondent did not choose to take steps to amend the name of the petitioner in R.C.C.No.62 of 1999, and thereby the petitioner could not withdraw the amount deposited by the second respondent in the said rent control case. It was also held that, though the rents have to be paid every month, the second respondent failed to deposit the said rents every month and that the rents for two to three months were deposited at a time as per the convenience of the second respondent. Thus, it was held that the second respondent committed default in payment of rent. 10. Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 / petitioner herein submits that since respondent No.2 has been depositing the rents in R.C.C.No.62 of 1999, she has not committed any default and therefore, the finding of appellate Court is not correct. 11. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyalu, learned counsel for the petitioner / respondent No.1 herein submits that after coming to know the correct name of the petitioner as ‘Kanaka Latha’, respondent No.2 did not take any steps to file the amendment petition in R.C.C.No.62 of 1999, therefore, respondent No.2 has committed willful default in payment of rents. 12. The only point that arises for consideration is whether respondent No.2 has committed any willful default in payment of rents. 13. Section 8 of the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 reads as follows: 1) Every tenant who makes a payment on account of rent or advance shall be entitled to obtain a receipt for the amount paid duly signed by the landlord or his authorized agent. 2) Where a landlord refuses to accept, or evades the receipt of, any rent lawfully payable to him by a tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may, by notice in writing, require the landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him, a bank into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord; Provided that such bank shall be one situated in the city, town or village in which the building is situated or if there is no such bank in such city, town or village, within three miles of the limits thereof. Rule 5 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Rules, 1961 envisages that: 1) A tenant desirous of depositing the rent under sub-section (5) of Section 8, or Section 9 or Section 11 shall deposit the same, if the building concerned is in the City of Hyderabad, in the State Bank of Hyderabad and if the building is elsewhere, in the Controller’s office or in the nearest treasury, whichever is convenient, after obtaining permission for the deposit of the rent from the Controller. 2) The challan accompanying the deposit of the rent shall be in the Andhra Pradesh Treasury Code in Form No.10 in triplicate and shall specify:- a) the name and address of tenant by whom or on whose behalf the rent is deposited; b) the name and address of the landlord entitled to receive the rent deposited; c) the rent at which and the period for which the rent is deposited; d) the description of the building in respect of which the rent is deposited; e) the provision of the Act including the circumstances under which the rent is deposited; and f) the head of account to which the rent is credited, namely:- “P. 11) Deposits and Advances –(Deposits and bearing interest)-C. Other Deposit Accounts – Civil Deposits – Personal Deposits –Personal Ledger Account of the Controller or Appellate authority, as the case may be”. 3) One copy of the challan for the deposit of rent returned by the State Bank of Hyderabad Controller’s Office or treasury, as the case may be, after endorsing thereon the receipt of the amount deposited, shall be delivered in the office of the Controller or the appellate authority as the case may be. 4) On delivering one copy of the challan the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall acknowledge its receipt on the back of the challan retained by the tenant and take necessary action for the service of the notice of deposit on the person or persons concerned within seven days of the delivery thereof. The notice of deposit shall be served on the person or persons concerned in one or other of the modes specified in Rule 16. 5) Every Controller and every appellate authority shall cause proper accounts to be maintained in their offices for the rents deposited under sub-section (5) of Section 8, or Section 9 or Section 11. 6) A tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made before the Controller shall deposit all the arrears of rent due by him, if any, in respect of the building within such reasonable time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be specified by the Controller. 14. Though respondent No.2 claims that she has issued notice in writing requiring the petitioner landlady specifying a bank into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlady, that copy of the said notice is not filed. 15. Though the correct name of the petitioner is ‘Kanaka Latha’, the fact remains that respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.1266 of 1998, showing the name of the petitioner as ‘Koppa Kanakalakshmi’. Of course, the said suit has been decreed. Subsequently, respondent No.2, filed R.C.C.No.62 of 1999, against the petitioner describing her name as ‘Kanaka Lakshmi’ instead of ‘Kanaka Latha’. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed counter specifically stating that her name is ‘Kanaka Latha’ and not ‘Kanaka Lakshmi’. In spite of filing the counter, respondent No.2 did not take any steps to amend the name of the petitioner in the said R.C.C.No.62 of 1999. As a result of which, the petitioner is unable to withdraw the amounts deposited by respondent No.2 to the credit of R.C.C.No.62 of 1999. It is clear that respondent No.2 in his evidence stated that he paid rents for the months of August and September, 1999 at once in November, 1999, and the rent for the month of February, 1999, was paid in May, 1999, and the rent for October and November, 1999, was paid on 01.04.2000. 16. Thus, it is clear that respondent No.2, committed default in payment of rents subsequently to the period July 1998. Moreover, as admitted by respondent No.2, she has not issued any notice to the petitioner about the deposit of rents into the Court. Thus, it is clear that the order of the appellate authority, which is based on well reasoning, needs no interference by this Court. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, the petitioner herein (second respondent) in R.C.C. is granted four months time to vacate the premises i.e., on or before 30.11.2010, subject to condition that the petitioner herein shall file an application within one month from today in R.C.C.No.62 of 1999, to amend the name of respondent No.1 herein as ‘Kanaka Latha’ to enable the respondent No.1 herein to withdraw the amounts deposited. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J JULY 06, 2010. YVL