IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4874 of 2010 Between: Kamadi Govaraju … Petitioner And Malladi Srinivasa Rao and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4874 OF 2010 ORDER:- Unsuccessful tenant in the courts below filed this revision under Section 22 of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order of eviction passed in R.C.C.No.45 of 2006 by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 20.01.2009, as confirmed by the impugned judgment in R.C.A.No.3 of 2009, dated 29.05.2010, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, on the ground of bona fide requirement and also willful default in payment of the rents by the tenant. The suit schedule property belongs to one Sangadi Suryarao, against whom the petitioner filed O.S.No.835 of 2006 for permanent injunction not to evict him without following the due process of law, in which he obtained an interim injunction in I.A.No.1940 of 2006. Pending the above suit, the petitioner sent rents for the months of April and May 2006 at Rs.200/- per month. Meanwhile, on petitioner receiving a notice from respondent Nos.2 and 3 claiming to have purchased the property from Sangidi Surya Rao, the petitioner sent a sum of Rs.800/- towards the rent for the months of April, May, June and July 2006 to them, which was received by them. Subsequently when he sent the rent for the month of August, 2006, respondent Nos.2 and 3-wife and husband/landlord and landlady refused to receive the same. Hence, petitioner/tenant filed R.C.C.No.42 of 2006 under Section 8 of the Act, seeking permission to deposit the rent into the Court. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed R.C.C.No.45 of 2006 seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of personal requirement contending that the building is in dilapidated condition which needs renovation and also on the ground of willful default. Both the R.C.Cs were clubbed together, in which the following issues were framed by the trial court:- 1. Whether the petitioner in R.C.C.No.42 of 2006 can be permitted to deposit the rents into the Court? 2. Whether the petitioners in R.C.C.No.45 of 2006 are entitled for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property as prayed for? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners in R.C.C.No.45 of 2006, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the petitioner in R.C.C.No.42 of 2006 and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked. The learned rent controller after elaborately considering the evidence adduced by the parties on point No.2 held that the landlord and the landlady failed to prove that the petition schedule property is in dilapidated condition, but they have established the bona fide requirement of the premises and accordingly, allowed the R.C.C.No.45 of 2006. On point No.1 it was held that merely respondent Nos.2 and 3 on one occasion received money order and subsequently refused to receive the same is not a ground for the petitioner to file R.C.C.No.42 of 2006 impleading the 1st respondent, vendor of respondent Nos.2 and 3, who remained ex parte, on the ground that there is a title dispute and therefore, deposit of the rents is not bona fide and there is no need to permit the petitioner/tenant to deposit the rents into the Court and accordingly, dismissed the R.C.C.No.42 of 2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner carried the matter in R.C.A.No.3 of 2009 against the order of eviction in R.C.C.No.45 of 2006 and against the dismissal of R.C.C.No.42 of 2006. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada by the impugned common judgment confirmed the common order passed by the rent controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no willful default in payment of rents on the part of the petitioner/tenant as the same has been deposited into the Court. But the finding recorded by the lower appellate court on point Nos.1 to 4 is that pending R.C.C.42 of 2006, there is no endeavour by the petitioner for payment of the rents and the arrears of the admitted rent at Rs.200/- per month was not deposited nor tendered by way of money order to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Further, the requirement of the premises by the landlord is bona fide and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Once it is not disputed that the rents for the months of April, May, June and July, 2006 sent by the petitioner was received by the respondents, when the rent for the month of August, 2006 was not received by them, the proper course for the petitioner is to send the same through money order. When the said money order also is not accepted, he can issue a notice calling upon the respondents to furnish their Bank account and if they fail to furnish the same, he can file the R.C.C. When the vendor of respondents has not demanded the rent and the sale deed, which was marked as Ex.A4, was accepted by the petitioner/tenant in his evidence, filing of R.C.C.No.42 of 2006 for deposit of rent into the Court impleading the vendor, clearly shows the mala fide intention of the petitioner to avoid payment of admitted rents to the respondents. In view of the same, the trial court rightly dismissed R.C.C.No.42 of 2006, which lacks bona fide. When the petitioner was not permitted to deposit the rent into the Court, he has not tendered to pay the said amount to the respondents. Further, there is no evidence adduced by the petitioner that he regularly deposited the rents to the credit of R.C.C. and that was withdrawn by respondent Nos.2 and 3. When respondent Nos.2 and 3 also established the fact that property is required for their personal occupation, which was accepted by the courts below on appreciation of the evidence adduced, I do not find any illegality or irregularly in the orders passed by the courts below, warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months time to vacate and handover vacant possession of the property, subject to his depositing the entire arrears of rents and continues to deposit the future rents on or before 10th of every succeeding month. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 29th October 2010 lmv