THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1313 of 2011 Date:21.04.2011 Between: Pilli Someswara Rao and others ..... Petitioners AND Pedada Venkata Ramana Rao and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Jyothi Prasad Counsel for Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 31.12.2010 in R.C.M.A.No.4 of 2010 on the file of the Appellate Authority under Rent Control Act-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, whereby it has confirmed the order dated 17.02.2010 in R.C.C.No.3 of 2007 on the file of the learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners are tenants in respect of the property in question. The demised property is part of several portions. It is the case of the respondents that the part of the property of which the petitioners are tenants fell to the share of respondent No.1. The respondents have filed R.C.C.No.3 of 2007 seeking eviction of the petitioners on two grounds; that the premises is needed for bona fide requirement and also that the petitioners have committed wilful default in payment of the rents. The Rent Controller, after appreciation of the evidence on record, found that the respondents failed to establish their plea of bona fide requirement. However, it held that the petitioners have committed wilful default in payment of the rents for forty-seven months and has accordingly ordered eviction of the petitioners. The Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, on re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. Therefore, the petitioners filed the present revision. At the hearing, the only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the fora below have failed to properly consider the issue of wilful default. The learned counsel further submitted that when his clients sought to pay the rent through money orders, the respondents have refused to receive the same and thereafter they have filed O.S.No.78 of 2006 in the Court of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, for permission to pay the agreed rent from February, 2006 to February, 2009 for a period of forty-seven months. This plea was considered and rejected by the Courts below. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority would show that for rejecting the above said plea, it has placed reliance on Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) apartfrom the decided case law. Under Section 8(2) of the Act, where a landlord refuses to accept or evades the receipt of any rent lawfully payable to him by a tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may, by notice in writing, require the landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him, a bank into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord. Under Sub- Section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, if the landlord specifies a bank, the tenant shall deposit the rent in the bank and shall continue to deposit in it any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building. Under Section 8(4) of the Act, if the landlord does not specify a bank as aforesaid, the tenant shall remit the rent to the landlord by money order after deducting the money order commission and continue to remit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building in the same manner until the landlord signifies by a written notice to the tenant his willingness to accept the rent or specifies a bank in which the rent shall be deposited in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Section (2). Section 8(5) of the Act envisages that if the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by money order under Sub-Section (4), the tenant may deposit the rent before such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed, and continue to deposit any rent, which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, before the same authority and in the same manner, and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the person held by the Controller, to be entitled to the amount on application made by such person to the Controller in that behalf. Petitioner No.2, who was examined as R.W.1, admitted in his cross examination that since January, 2006, he did not deposit the rent, that after dismissal of R.C.C.No.12 of 2004 filed for restoration of amenities, he filed O.S.No.78 of 2006 and I.A.No.81 of 2006 in the said suit for permission to deposit the rents and that the said I.A. was later allowed and in pursuance of the order passed therein, he deposited the rents. While considering these facts, the Appellate Authority found that the petitioners failed to explain as to why they did not pay rent for a period of forty-seven months. The Appellate Authority also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in A.Saleem vs. Smt.S.Vasantha Kumari[1] and the judgment of the Apex Court in M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu[2] in rejecting the plea of the petitioners that by filing the suit, they have complied with requirement of Section 8 of the Act. On a careful consideration of the material on record and the concurrent findings rendered by both the authorities below, I am convinced that the orders of the authorities below do not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. At the hearing, the leaned counsel for the petitioners requested for granting reasonable time to his clients to vacate the premises. The Appellate Authority, while dismissing the C.M.A., has granted three months’ time, which has already expired. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are granted one month’s time from today for vacating the premises. Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.R.P., C.R.P.M.P.No.1872 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st April, 2011 GHN [1] 1993(1) A.P.L.J. (10) Short Notes [2] (1996) 6 SCC 228