IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2959 OF 2001 Between:- V.Anil …Petitioner A n d Farzana Begum …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2959 OF 2001 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19-03-2001 in R.A.No.133 of 1997, on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein the appeal filed by the respondent herein against the order of eviction passed under Section 11 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) by the learned Rent Controller on 04- 04-197 in R.C.No.556 of 1996 was set aside directing the learned Rent Controller to dispose of the matter afresh. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appeared for the respondent and no representation is made on her behalf in spite of granting several adjournments. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in respect of the petition schedule premises and mulgi situate in Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. It is not disputed that the monthly rent payable is Rs.800/-. The petitioner herein filed R.C.No.556 of 1996 under Section 10(2) (i) of the Act seeking eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rents. According to the petitioner, the respondent/tenant committed default in payment of monthly rents from April, 1996 to September, 1996. The eviction petition was filed in the month of October, 1996. It is alleged that even subsequent to filing of the eviction petition also the respondent has not been paying the rent and committed default. Therefore, he filed an application in I.A.No.638 of 1996 under Section 11 of the Act seeking a direction to the respondent to deposit the arrears of rents of Rs.5,600/- for the period from April, 1996 to October, 1996. The respondent herein filed a counter contesting the said application. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned Rent Controller by order dated 19-03-1997 allowed the said application and directed the respondent herein to deposit the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.5,600/- on or before 04- 04-1997 with a further direction that the respondent shall deposit future monthly rent on or before 10th of every succeeding month. The respondent did not deposit the said amount within time. She filed an application in I.A.SR.No.1610 of 1997 seeking extension of time by one month. The said application was rejected by the learned Rent Controller by order dated 04-04-1997. As the amount was not deposited in time, as ordered, I.A.No.638 of 1996 was also closed and on the same day i.e., 04-04- 1997, the learned Rent Controller allowed R.C.No.556 of 1996 in view of the orders in I.A.No.638 of 1996 and directed the respondent to vacate the premises within two months. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the respondent herein filed R.A.No.133 of 1997. By the impugned order dated 19-03-2001, the learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and directed fresh disposal of the matter. In the impugned order, the learned Appellate Authority observed that as the tenant has since deposited the arrears of rent and has been depositing the rent regularly and with a view to provide an opportunity to both sides and to have better adjudication of the matter, the order passed by the lower Court was set aside. The admitted fact remains that the respondent/ tenant did not deposit the arrears of rent within the time as ordered by the learned Rent Controller. It is only after filing of the appeal against the order of eviction that the tenant has chosen to deposit the arrears of rent. As the tenant has since deposited the arrears of rent and was continuing to deposit monthly rent regularly, the learned Appellate Authority appears to have thought it fit to remand the matter for fresh disposal on merits. The said order was assailed by the landlord by way of the present revision. This Court by an earlier order dated 04-02-2002 allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority in R.A.No.133 of 1997 and confirmed the order of the eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and granting three months time to vacate the premises. In the said order, this Court held that the appeal in R.A.No.133 of 1997 was preferred against the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller, as seen from the order of the appellate authority and, therefore, the earlier order passed by the Rent Controller in I.A.No.638 of 1996, not having been challenged, the same became final and conclusive and, therefore, the consequential order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller is legal and justifiable. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/ tenant preferred Civil Appeal No.14 of 2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court by order dated 14-07-2009 allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order of this Court and remanded the matter for fresh decision, observing as follows: “Surprisingly, the High Court in the impugned judgment has held that the order of the Rent Controller in I.A.No.638/96 has become final and conclusive and it was not challenged before the Appellate Court. This is an obvious mistake by the High Court because the order of the Rent Controller on the I.A had in fact been challenged in appeal by the tenant and the appeal had been allowed and the said order had been set aside.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no appeal was, in fact, filed by the respondent/tenant against the order dated 19-03-1997 in I.A.No.638 of 1996 wherein the respondent was directed to deposit the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.5,600/- on or before 04-04-1997. On the other hand, the respondent filed I.A.SR.No.1610 of 1997 for extension of time by one month and the same was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 04-04-1997. Consequently, the earlier order dated 19-03-1997 worked itself out and an order of eviction was passed on the same day i.e., 04-04-1997 in R.C.No.556 of 1996 for non-compliance of the order in I.A.No.638 of 1996. It was against the said order of eviction passed in R.C.No.556 of 1996 that the tenant had preferred R.A.No.133 of 1997 and there was no other appeal preferred by the tenant against any other order. In the first paragraph of the impugned judgment in R.A.No.133 of 1997 it is stated that the appeal is directed against the eviction order passed closing I.A.No.638 of 1996 under Section 11 of the Act striking off the defence by the Principal Rent Controller in its order dated 04-04- 1997. In paragraph 3 of the impugned order, it is stated that the tenant failed to comply with the order and, therefore, the Court passed eviction order on 04-04-1997. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order it is stated that aggrieved by that order the tenant preferred an appeal. Thus, as seen from the impugned judgment dated 19-03- 2001 in R.A.No.133 of 1997, the said appeal was, in fact, filed by the tenant against the order of eviction dated 04- 04-1997 in R.C.No.556 of 1996. It has not been brought to the notice of this Court that any other appeal or revision against any other order passed by the Rent Controller in this matter has been filed or the particulars thereof. The reference to I.A.No.638 of 1996 in the impugned order dated 19-03-2001 in R.A.No.133 of 1997 immediately beneath the cause title appears to be a mistake as the said appeal was filed against the order of eviction dated 04-04-1997, but not against the order passed in I.A.No.638 of 1996 on 19-03- 1997. It is, therefore, clear from the record that the respondent/tenant has not challenged the order dated 19- 03-1997 in I.A.No.638 of 1996 and the said order directing him to deposit the arrears of rent in a sum of Rs.5,600/- had become final and as the respondent/tenant has not complied with the said order and had not deposited the arrears of rent within time, as directed, he rendered himself liable for eviction. The impugned order dated 19-03-2001 passed by the learned Appellate Authority in R.A.No.133 of 1997, setting aside the order of eviction is, therefore, legally unsustainable 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19-03- 2001 in R.A.No.133 of 1997 is, therefore, held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned Rent Controller is confirmed. The respondent/ tenant is granted three months time from today to vacate the petition schedule premises. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th December, 2009 Lrkm.