THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 595 OF 2011 Date: 15-04-2011 Between G. Durga Rao …..Petitioner And Kurnala Kailasanath …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 595 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner – tenant filed this revision aggrieved by the dismissal of R.C.C.M.A No. 37 of 2010 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada vide order dated 08-09-2010 confirming the order of eviction dated 26-03-2010 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C No. 147 of 2008. The respondent – landlord filed the above RCC for eviction of the petitioner – tenant on the grounds of wilful default and requirement of the premises for his personal occupation namely for construction of a residential house. The petitioner – tenant contested the RCC denying the contents of the petition. The Rent Controller gave a finding that respondent – landlord failed to prove that the petitioner – tenant has committed wilful default from April, 2007 onwards, but since it is proved that he is not paying the rents after filing of the petition, it can be said that he has committed default from the date of filing of the petition which amounts to wilful default and ordered his eviction. The Rent Controller rejected the plea of the respondent that the premises is required for his personal occupation. On appeal being filed, the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller holding that it is for the tenant to show that he has been paying the rents to the son of the landlord subsequent to issuance of notice after filing of the eviction petition. Since the tenant has failed to pay rents even after filing of the petition and has deposited the defaulted amount at the time of seeking stay, he committed wilful default and thus liable to be evicted from the petition schedule premises. Hence the revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vinukonda Venkata Ramana v. M. Venkateswara Rao[1], defaults made subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition cannot be a ground for ordering eviction unless the conditions laid down in Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 are satisfied. In view of the same, the order passed by the Rent Controller as confirmed by the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Rent Controller to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to lead further evidence and the respondent also can file an application under Section 11 of the Act. The Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the RCC within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 15-04-2011 ks [1] 2001 (5) ALT 479