S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions are directed against the judgments rendered in r. a. nos. 129 of 2000 and 229 of 2000 by the additional chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE facts that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows: eviction petition in r. c. no. 621 of 1998 was presented against the tenant by the landlord before the ii additional rent controller, hyderabad. It is being contested by the tenant. The landlord has claimed that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents and also sought for bona fide requirement of the premises. During the pendency of the petition, la. No. 500 of 1999 has been presented under Section 11 (1) of the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the act ) to direct the tenant to pay or deposit arrears of rent from 16. 4. 1998 to 30. 9. 1999 at rs. 900/- and also future rents. Thereupon, the lower court marked the written statement of the defendant in o. s. no. 2020 of 1998 and allowed the application with a direction to deposit rs. 100/- per month being the admitted rent. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has carried the matter in appeal before the additional chief judge, city small causes court at hyderabad. The appellate authority in r. a. no. 229 of 2000 has confirmed the order of the rent controller. Thereupon, the tenant has preferred c. r. p. no. 3975 of 2002 against r. a. no. 229 of 2000. In the meanwhile, the landlord has presented i. a. no. 136 of 2000 in i. a. no. 500 of 1999 in r. c. no. 621 of 1998 under Section 11 (4) of the act before the ii additional rent controller, hyderabad to stop all further proceedings and deliver possession. Thereupon, the rent controller has directed the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the schedule premises within one month by stopping all further proceedings in r. c. no. 621 of 1998. The tenant once again carried the matter in appeal before the additional chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad, in respect of the said orders passed in i. a. no. 136 of 2000. The appellate authority in r. a. no. 129 of 2000 has confirmed the order of the rent controller. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant once again preferred c. r. p. no. 3928 of 2002. Hence, these two revisions are being disposed of together by a common order.

( 3 ) THE short point that arises for consideration is whether the order directing the tenant to deposit the alleged admitted rent and also directing the, tenant to put the landlord in possession is in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the act.

( 4 ) IT is noticed by this court that no documentary evidence is produced. It is an admitted fact that the present landlord purchased the said premises subsequently. Before adverting to the contentions, it is necessary to have a look at provisions of Section 11 of the act, which reads as follows:

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner sri koka raghava rao mainly contends that the tenant was depositing the rents before the rent controller in earlier proceedings and there is no need to give a direction to deposit once again. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord contends that the deposit made in the prior proceedings does not amount to sufficient compliance and it amount to wilful default. In any view of the matter, that has to be adjudicated only in the main application.

( 6 ) THE only point that has to be considered is whether there is any dispute as to the rent to be paid or deposited and if so whether the court has determined summarily the rent to be so paid. The rent controller in his order passed in i. a. no. 500 of 1999 has stated as under:having observed that quantum of rent is in dispute, it went on to consider about the depositing of rent at the rate rs. 100/- per month. It is contemplated under Section 11 (3) of the act that the rent controller is bound to make enquiry and determine summarily the rent to be so p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document