THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.6346 OF 2009 15-07-2010 Between: ShaikNazee Basha ..petitioner Vs. V.Obulesu and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.6346 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER This revision under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,1960 ( for short “the Act”) is fundamentally misconceived. The respondents filed R.C.C 2 of 2003 before the Junior Civil Judge-cum- Rent Controller, Kanigiri seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the schedule premises. By the order dated 01-05-2008, the learned Rent Controller allowed R.C.C 2 of 2003 on a plurality of grounds, namely, willful default in the payment of rents and denial of title. There against, the revision petitioner filed an appeal R.C.A 1 of 2008 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur. The respondents/landlords filed I.A.No.608 of 2008 under Section 11(1) read with 20 of the Act seeking payment of the arrears of rent @ 375/- per month from May 1990 till end of July 2008, for a total sum of Rs.81,750/-. The said application was allowed by the court below rejecting the objections of the petitioner that an application for deposit of arrears of rent under Section 11 is not maintainable where the tenant denies the title of the landlords. The lower appellate court rightly concluded that the provisions of Section 11 (which enjoin that no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been preferred by a land-lord under Section 10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that section or to prefer any appeal under Section 20 against any order made by the Controller on an application under Section.10 unless the tenant has paid to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of the rent due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit any continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the buildings, until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be), clearly require the revision petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent and accordingly directed the revision petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs.81,750/- @ 375/- per month from May 1990 to July 2008 within in 30 days failing which the revision petitioner would be disentitled to prosecute R.C.A 1 of 2008. This court discerns no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the court below, warranting revisional interference. This revision is vexatious and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) payable by the revision petitioner to the respondents/land lords within two (2) weeks, within which time the revision petitioner would also be liable to deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the impugned order. On failure to deposit such arrears of rent within the period of two weeks along with costs of Rs.1000/- imposed herein, the revision petitioner would be disentitled to prosecute R.C.A 1 of 2008. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 15th JULY 2010 TSNR