HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 1719 OF 2010 Friday, the Twenty Third of April, Two Thousand and Ten Between Hemanth Kumar Petitioner AND Smt. Susheela Rani Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 1719 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for brevity the Act) is filed by the tenant against the Judgment dated 20.10.2009 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A. No. 273 of 2007 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed confirming the order dated 24.10.2007 made in R.C. No. 21 of 2007 by the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad. The respondent herein is the absolute owner of the mulgi bearing No.2-4-8, situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Secunderabad, while the petitioner herein is the tenant carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Sangam Footwear. It is case of the petitioner that as the rents remitted by Money Orders were repeatedly returned or refused, he got issued a legal notice on 2.9.2006 calling upon the respondent to nominate a bank so as to enable him to deposit the rents into her account, to which the respondent got issued reply. It is his further case that though the respondent changed her residence, she did not furnish her address and after enquiring the same, the petitioner started remitting the rents to her new address. It is stated that the rents for May to September, 2006 amounting to Rs.1580/- by way of money order was received but the subsequent rents by way of money orders were returned and thus the respondent deliberately evaded to receive the rents. It is case of the respondent that in the month of April, 2006 itself, she informed the petitioner over phone that she is shifting her residence and also furnished the address, but deliberately with a malafide intention, the petitioner appears to have sent the money orders on her previous address and the malafide intention is evident from the fact that the notice was sent to the address where she was residing. It is her further case that after giving reply to the notice dated 2.9.2006, she had filed RC No. 43 of 2007 for eviction on the file of the Addl. Rent Controller pleading willful default of the petitioner, his securing alternative accommodation, personal requirement and also subletting and, therefore, she is right in not receiving the rents thereafter. It is further stated that the petitioner has deliberately failed to follow the procedure under Sec. 8 of the Act. On behalf of the petitioner – tenant, he himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-53 while on behalf of the landlady, neither oral nor document evidence was adduced. The trial court on extensive consideration of the contentions raised before it, dismissed the petition filed under Sec. 8(5) of the Act observing that the petitioner has failed to issue notice under Sec. 8(2) of the Act, which his prerequisite for filing the petition under Sec.8(5) of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rents into the court and, as such, the petitioner cannot seek the relief to deposit the rents from the month of October, 2006. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner - tenant preferred appeal in R.A. No. 273 of 2007 inter alia contending that the trial court failed to consider the aspect that though the rents were remitted by money orders, the respondent refused to receive the same from May, 2006 onwards. It was further contended that the money orders sent to her new address were also returned, which evidences intention of the respondent to evade receipt of rents. The learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the above appeal, by the judgment impugned herein, confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the courts below, the petitioner - tenant preferred this Revision Petition. The jural relationship of the petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute. As observed by the lower appellate court, the contents of the notice dated 2.9.2006, which was sent by the petitioner on the new address to the respondent do not fulfill the requirement of Sec. 8(2) of the Act. The petitioner, having sent the rents by way of money orders to the old address, is conspicuously silent as to how he could send the notice to the new address of the respondent. That apart, as rightly observed by the lower appellate court, no where in the said notice, got issued by the petitioner, it is stated that the respondent did not inform him about change in her address, which supports the version of the respondent in her reply notice dated 17.9.2006 that she informed her new address over phone. The lower appellate court, adverting to various contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner and the mandatory procedure under Sec.8 of the Act, has observed that there was not even proper tender of rents and since there was no proper tender of rents on the part of the petitioner, for the period covered by the notice, there was no cause of action for the petitioner to file the R.C. The lower appellate court is further right in observing that even after exchange of notice and reply, the provision under Sec. 8(2) of the Act is not adhered to. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner herein has failed to substantiate his case on any count and hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________________ Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari April 23, 2010 MAS