THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.130 of 2008 Date of Order: 20-12-2010 Between: Garlapati Mohana Rao ..Petitioner and 1. Motilal (died per L.Rs.) and others .Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.130 of 2008 Oral order: This revision under Section 22 of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”) by the tenant is directed against the dismissal of R.C.C.M.A.No.1/1998 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Appellate Authority under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, Vijayawada, (hereinafter called as “Appellate Authority”) dated 20-11-2007 wherein he confirmed the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.187 of 1996 (Old RCC No.7/1994), dated 04-12-1997. There is no dispute with regard to tenant and landlord relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. The respondents/landlords earlier filed R.C.C.No.171 of 1986 on the ground of wilful default and also personal occupation stating that the petitioner/tenant failed to pay the rents from 04-09-1985 to 03- 07-1986. On allowing the R.C.C., the petitioner/tenant filed RCCMA No.2/1991. Pending the said RCCMA the present RCC No.187 of 1996 (old RCC 7/1994) is filed by the respondents/landlords seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents from June, 1998 to 04-09-2003; the respondent constructed the building of his own at Bhavanipuram and shifted his premises and residing in his constructed house and sub-let the premises to others and collecting rent of Rs.1500/-. The petitioner/tenant filed the counter and contested the matter. The lower court accepted the contention of the landlords that there is willful default in payment of rent from June, 1998 to September, 2003 for a period of five years and four months. The contention of the petitioner/tenant that he is depositing the rent to the credit of RCCMA No.374 of 1988 has not been accepted, since no notice was given to the respondents/landlords or their counsel intimating about deposit of rents and facilitating them to withdraw the said amount. Therefore, the petitioner/tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents and ordered for eviction. On appeal being filed the Appellate authority after re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller. Since it is duty of the petitioner/tenant to issue notice to the respondents/landlords about deposit of the rents, he filed RCC No.170/1986 seeking permission to deposit the rents into court and on allowing the same the landlords filed RCCMA No.374/1988. Unless the petitioner intimates about deposit of rents to the credit of RCCMA No.374/1988, the fact remains that the landlords are prevented from withdrawing the amount without furnishing particulars, which constitute wilful default in payment of rents. The concurrent findings arrived by the courts below do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner/tenant is granted three months time i.e. end of March, 2010 for vacating the premises subject to payment of arrears due and furnish an undertaking to deposit the rents to the credit of RCCMA No.374/1988 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and continues to deposit the future rents from December, 2010 onwards on or before 10th of succeeding month to the credit of RCCMA No.374 of 1988. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 20-12-2010 Murthy