HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4090 of 2011 Dt:-- 23.09.2011 Between:- Nidumolu Rajendra Prasad … Petitioner and Thamma Subramanya Sastry and others … Respondents This Court made the following:- HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4090 of 2011 ORDER: - Petitioner/tenant filed this revision under Section 22 of the A.P.Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act”) aggrieved by the order and decree of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, Vijayawada, in R.C.C.M.A.No.9 of 2010, dated 23.06.2011, whereby the order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.182 of 2006, dated 02.12.2009, has been confirmed. Respondent No.1/landlord filed the above R.C.C. under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule premises stating that he is the owner of the petition schedule premises and he leased out the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- excluding electricity consumption charges and Rs.125/- towards water charges. The petitioner/tenant deliberately quarreled with the landlord; lodged a police report during January, 2006; stopped payment of the rents from 01.02.2006 to harass the landlord; and filed R.C.C.No.77 of 2006 under Section 8(5) of the Act for depositing the rents. The said R.C.C. was dismissed on 30.10.2006 on merits directing the tenant to pay the rents to the landlord. In spite of dismissal, the tenant has not paid the rents and water charges and the total arrears accumulated to Rs.15,000/- and Rs.1,250/- from 01.02.2006 to 30.11.2006 and therefore, he committed a willful default and liable to be evicted. Petitioner/tenant filed a counter contesting the petition stating that there is no willful default committed by him in payment of the rents. When the landlord interfered with his amenities, he filed R.C.C.No.41 of 2007 for restoration of water, which was ordered. When the landlord tried to evict the tenant, he was constrained to file a suit for injunction. There are no bona fides in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings, two points were framed by the Rent Controller. On behalf of the landlord, he himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. On behalf of the tenant, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. Pending the R.C.C., the landlord filed I.A.No.66 of 2007 under Section 11(4) of the Act, in which the Rent Controller directed the tenant to pay the arrears of rents. But the tenant failed to pay the rents and hence, further proceedings are stopped and the R.C.C. is decreed ordering eviction. As against the same, the tenant preferred an appeal in R.C.C.M.A.No.187 of 2008, whereunder the R.C.C. was remanded to the court below for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both the parties. On such remand, the above evidence was let in and the Rent Controller by the well considered order, ordered the eviction of the tenant, holding that even after dismissal of R.C.C.No.77 of 2006 filed by the tenant under Section 8(5) of the Act on 30.10.2006, the tenant deposited the rents to the credit of the R.C.C.No.77 of 2006 in the month of February, 2007 and, therefore, he committed a willful default; that the tenant has not issued any legal notice or any letter requesting the landlord to receive the rents; that the tenant intentionally did not offer or tender the rents directly to the landlord after dismissing the petition under Section 8(5) of the Act, which amounts to willful default and accordingly, R.C.C. was allowed. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate court confirmed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the amount has already been deposited to the credit of the R.C.C.No.77 of 2006, there is no willful default on the part of the tenant, but it is only a default in payment of the rents. The landlord was permitted to withdraw the same and accordingly, he withdrew the amount. Therefore, there is no willful default as alleged and both the courts below fell in error in ordering eviction. He further submits that the tenant is a senior citizen and in the event if the revision is dismissed, six months time may be granted to the tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/tenant filed R.C.C.No.77 of 2006 under Section 8(5) of the Act, seeking permission of the Court to deposit the monthly rents on the ground that the landlord refused to receive the rents. The said petition was dismissed on 30.10.2006 stating that the landlord agreed to receive the monthly rent and, therefore, there is no necessity to grant permission to the tenant to deposit the rents. Even after dismissal of the said R.C.C., he has not tendered to deposit the rents. Hence, the landlord was forced to file R.C.C.No.182 of 2006, in which he filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Act, which was ordered striking out the defence of the tenant, against which he carried the matter in appeal. The said appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back and later he deposited the rents in February, 2007 to the credit of R.C.C.No.77 of 2006 without offering the rent to the landlord and without issuing any notice to him about the deposit of the rents, which is nothing but deliberate harassment caused to the landlord preventing him from receiving of the rents. In view of the same, the finding recorded by both the courts below that the tenant committed willful default in payment of the rents, is sustainable and does not warrant interference by this Court. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted four months time till 31.01.2012, subject to his depositing the entire arrears of rent and continues to deposit the rent for the month of September, 2011 on or before 10.10.2011 and continues to deposit the rents for succeeding months on or before 10th of every succeeding month and gives an undertaking to the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada on or before 15.10.2011 that he will vacate and handover possession of the property to the landlords on or before 31.01.2012. In default of either of the conditions, it is open for the landlords to execute the decree, in accordance with law. No costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 23.09.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2899 of 2010 23.09.2011 lmv