THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4660 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 22.06.2009 in R.A. No.153 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the order dated 26.6.2007 in R.C. No.117 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad dismissing the R.C., was confirmed. 2. The petitioner herein filed R.C. under Section 8 (2) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Rent Control Act’) to permit him to deposit an amount of Rs.2,400/- being the monthly rent for the period from May, 2004 to July, 2004 @ Rs.800/- per month for the mulgi bearing no.7-3-118 situated at Hissangunj, Monda Market, Secunderabad. The trial court dismissed the said petition holding that when there is no dispute with regard to quantum of rent payable, then only it can permit the tenant to deposit the rent into the court, and when there is a dispute with regard to rent payable, it cannot grant such permission. On appeal, the said order was confirmed by the appellate court vide the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the contended that prior to May, 2004, the representative of the landlord used to collect rents, and as he was not collecting the rents from the month of May, 2004, the petitioner sent the rents by way of money order, but the same have been refused by the landlord, and hence, permission may be given to him to deposit the rents into the credit of rent control case. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the landlord is not made a party to the petition and that the rent payable is Rs.1,200/- per month; that Exs.R2 and R3 would go to show that the petitioner paid rents to second respondent @ Rs.1,200/- per month, and in such a case, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 5. Revisional jurisdiction of this court is a residual and supervisory jurisdiction. It can be exercised by this Court when the findings of the courts below are perverse or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration or the evidence has been misread. Therefore, in short, there must be perverse findings were given by both the courts so as to call for interference by this Court. 6. The primary object of Section 22 of the Rent Control Act is to prevent Rent Controller or the appellate authority acting from illegality, irregularity or impropriety in exercise of their jurisdiction. It clothes the High Court with the powers to see that the order or proceedings of Rent Controller, and on appeal by the appellate authority, are conducted in accordance with law within the bounds of their jurisdiction and in furtherance of justice. 7. Under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act, three requirements are to be satisfied viz. (i) the address of the landlord or his authorized agent is not known to the tenant; (ii) the rent lawfully payable to the landlord in respect of the building; (iii) to deposit rents before such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed. 8. The Rent Controller dismissed the Rent Control Case filed by the petitioner on the ground that when there is a dispute with regard to rent payable, the petitioner cannot be permitted to deposit the rents into the court. On appeal, it was confirmed. It is the case of the petitioner that as the first respondent is deliberately refusing to receive the rents, he got issued a notice under Section 8 (2) of the Rent Control Act calling upon the first respondent to specify Bank Account number and name of the bank to enable him to deposit the rents. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent got issued notice dated 26.5.2004 to the petitioner demanding him to vacate the premises in question. A specific plea has been taken by the second respondent that the first respondent is the owner of Mulgi and as per will executed by Dandu Agaiah, the Mulgi fell to the share of M/s. S.K.P. Enterprises in which the second respondent is a partner, who is entitled to receive the rent from the petitioner. P.W.1 admitted that the second respondent got issued a notice demanding to vacate the premises and also claiming ownership over the Mulgi. Therefore, he ought to have issued the notice to the second respondent to furnish bank account and the name of the bank to enable him to deposit the rents. P.W.1 has not given any such notice to the second respondent. It is not the case of P.W.1 that he does not know the address of landlord or his authorized agent. There is no material to show that the first respondent is the authorized agent of the second respondent. 9. Coming to the rent payable to Mulgi, it is the case of the petitioner that the rent payable is Rs.800/- per month. According to the second respondent, rent payable is Rs.1,200/- per month. Money order receipts filed by the petitioner would go to show that the petitioner was sending rents @ Rs.800/- for the months of May, 2004 and June, 2004. But, as per Exs.R2 and R3, the counter foils of rent, they would go to show that the petitioner paid rents to the second respondent @ Rs.1,200/- per month. Ex.R7, the income tax return, shows that the rent payable by the petitioner is Rs.1,200/- per month. From the evidence on record, the lawful rent payable by the petitioner is Rs.1,200/- per month. As the rent payable is more than Rs.1,000/-, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to permit the petitioner to deposit the rents into the credit of the Rent Control Case. Considering these aspects, the trial court rightly dismissed the Rent Control Case and the same was rightly affirmed by the appellate court. None of the findings of the courts below is shown to be illegal or improper or irregular. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 14.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4660 of 2009 14.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4660 of 2009 14.2.2011 Between: Proddaturi Veeresham …Petitioner And P.Vikram & another …Respondents