( 1 ) WHETHER default on the part of the tenant to pay all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of petition or default to continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, would automatically entitle the landlord to obtain an order from the Rent Controller directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building is the question involved in these applications.

( 2 ) A learned single Judge of this Court in the order of his reference dated 4-8-1997 in C. R. P. No. 4040 of 1995 referred the following questions to a Division Bench : (1) Whether the eviction petition is not maintainable when the entire amount of arrears of rent has been paid and there was no amount due as on the date of filing of the eviction petition. In Dakaya v. Anjani, AIR 1996 SC 383, the Supreme Court following the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Pillai etc. v. V. R. Pattabhiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582, held that if the payment has been made before the institution of the suit, the cause of action for instituting the suit will vanish. On the other hand, a Full Bench of this Court in P. N. Rao v. K. Radhakrishnamacharyulu, AIR 1978 AP 319, held that there is nothing in Section 10 (2) (i) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act which enables the tenant to contend that the right to sue for eviction is lost merely because he pays or tenders the rent due by him subsequently and that it is not correct to say that in order to succeed in the petition for eviction, there must be a subsisting liability on the date of eviction petition and it cannot be contended that the eviction petition was not maintainable merely because the landlord received the rent prior to the eviction petition. The question, therefore, arises whether this Full Bench judgment can be said to be impliedly overruled by the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court. (2) In coming to the conclusion that the tenant has committed willful default and he is, therefore, liable for eviction, the lower appellate Court has taken into consideration the defaults allegedly made by the tenant subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition. There is a conflict of views on the question whether default made subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition can be made a ground for ordering eviction. In the decisions reported in V. V. Krishna Vara Prasad v. S. Surya Rao, 1997 (1) APLJ 129; Malleddi Prakasarao v. Margani Prem Gowri Devi, 1996 (1) ALD 159; N. Ananda Rao v. P. Naga Anjeswara Rao, 1997 (4) ALT 1, three learned single Judges of this Court have taken the view that default subsequent to the filing of petition also can be taken into account of ordering eviction, whereas in the decisions reported in Chikkam Satya-narayana v. Samisetti Subba Rao, 1994 (1) An WR 291; P. Rajanna v. K. Lalitha Reddi, AIR 1996 AP 113 and Sona Optics v. Shyam Sunderbhar Gava, 1997 (1) ALD 628, it was held that failure to pay rent by the tenant after filing of eviction petition cannot be a ground for passing the order of eviction under Section 10 (2) (1) of the Act. This conflict of views has to be also resolved by a Division Bench. (3) The third question which arises for decision is, in the absence of a specific provision in the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act whether additional evidence can be received in a revision filed under Section 22 of the Act.

( 3 ) AGAIN a Division Bench of this Court in turn referred the matter to a Full Bench by an order dated 17-12-1997 observing : one of the points referred to the Division Bench by the learned single Judge is whether the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in P. N. Rao v. K. Radhakrishnamacharyulu, AIR 1978 AP 319, is impliedly overruled by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Dakaya v. Anjani, AIR 1996 SC 383 and S. Sundaram Pillai etc. v. V. R. Pattabhiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582. In view of this, we consider it appropriate