HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2710 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 14.06.2011 passed in R.A.No. 441 of 2010 on the file of Chief Judge City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad confirming the order dated 24.11.2010 passed in I.A.No. 593 of 2010 in I.A.No. 133 of 2010 in R.C.No. 1 of 2010 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is a tenant and he has not deposited the rent for the months from January to July 2010. Hence, the respondent-landlord filed I.A. No. 593 of 2010 under Section 11 (4) of the A.P. Rent Control Act for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule premises as he failed to comply with the orders passed in I.A.No. 133 of 2010. That petition is allowed and the petitioner herein was directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the respondent herein within one month from that date and failing which liberty is given to take steps to evict the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed R.A.No. 441 of 2010 and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 24.11.2010 passed in I.A.No. 593 of 2010 in I.A.No. 133 of 2010 in R.C.No. 1 of 2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 11(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and for ready reference, the same is extracted hereunder: “11(4) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building”. He also submits that though the petitioner has shown sufficient cause the Court below directed him to vacate and handover the possession of the schedule building. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in MANMOHAN KAUR VS. SURYA KANT BHAGWANI[1], wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph 8 observed as under: “8. Therefore, the interest of justice which is the paramount justification of the administration of justice with the purpose of the Act, compels us to hold that if the delay is explained then there is no delay and the court in such a case cannot strike off the defence. If , on the other hand, the delay is not explained or the explanation is one which is not acceptable to the Court, then the court must strike out the defence and there is no discretion. Read in that light, in our opinion, the learned trial judge of the High Court committed an error in exercising his jurisdiction. The orders of the High Court and the Trial Court are set aside. The defence of the appellant is restored since all the rents have been deposited. In view of the delay due to interruption in the prosecution of the case, it is desirable, if possible, to dispose of the trial within six months from today, particularly since the case has been pending since 1975. The appeal is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. In the facts and the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the appellant in taking an incorrect defence leading to subsequent proceedings, the appellant lis directed to pay all costs of this appeal which are assessed as Rs. 1,500/-.” On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge in GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN VS. DR. L. BHASKAR REDDY[2], wherein a learned Single Judge observed that the order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 11(3) shall be strictly construed and even an unexplained delay of two or three days in the deposit of rent as per the order of the Rent Controller would attract Section 11(4) of the Act. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, the petitioner-tenant violated the directions/conditions imposed in I.A.No. 133 of 2010. The petitioner-tenant ought to have paid the rent for the month of August on or before 10th of September 2010, but as per Ex. R-5, he deposited the rent for the month of August 2010 on 1.10.2010. Therefore, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the orders dated 24.11.2010 made in I.A.No. 593/2010 in I.A.No. 133 of 2010 in R.C No. 1 of 2010. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, three months time is granted to the petitioner-tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession to respondent-landlord. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 02.09.2011 KA [1] AIR 1989 SC 291 [2] 1995 (2) ALT 73