( 1 ) THE revision petitioner assails the judgment dated 24-7-2000 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad in R. A. No. 56 of 2000.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the respondent in R. C. No. 231 of 1996. The late mother of the respondents herein filed r. C. No. 231 of 1996 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner is the tenant of the demised premises and committed wilful default in paying the rents. That petition was resisted by filing a counter denying inter alia the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se between the parties by taking a specific plea that the property in question was gifted to her by the maternal grandfather of the respondents under an oral gift and thereby setting up title over the property.

( 3 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, the mother of the respondents herein filed i. A. No. 853 of 1996 under Sec. 11 (1) of the a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act (The Act for brevity) seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of rent from November 1995 to september 1996 in a sum of Rs. 4,400. 00 at the rate of Rs. 400. 00per month. That petition was resisted by filing a counter by the petitioner herein. By an order dated 30-4-1997, the petition was allowed directing the petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of rent from November, 1995 to september, 1996 and a further direction was given therein to also deposit the subsequent monthly rents on or before 10th of the succeeding month, without prejudice to her rights and contentions in the main case. Thereafter the respondents herein also filed another petition in I. A. No. 898 of 1999 under Section 11 (4) of the Act requesting the Rent Controller to stop all further proceedings as envisaged under Sec. 11 (4) of the Act and to pass eviction orders against the respondent therein who is the petitioner herein and to put the petitioners forthwith in physical vacant possession of the petition schedule premises on the premise that the respondent therein wilfully withheld the rents from March, 1999 to november, 1999. That petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 8-2-2000 directing the. respondent therein to put the petitioners in the physical vacant possession of the premises. Having been aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner filed the appeal in r. A. NO. 56 of 2000 before the learned Chief judge, City Small Causes Court. Under the impugned judgment dated 24-7-2000, the learned Chief Judge dismissed the appeal. Assailing the same as aforesaid, the present revision petition has been filed.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that as on the date of filing of the petition under Section 11 (4) of the Act there were no dues and the revision petitioner has cleared all the dues.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that even if the rents were deposited since the challans were not filed into the Court and as necessary information was not furnished to the respondents, there has been non-compliance of Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules and therefore, the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted.

( 6 ) BEFORE adverting to the respective contentions on either side, it may be mentioned here that the revision petitioner has been disputing the title of Smt. Noorjahan Begum, the mother of the respondents herein. The specific plea taken up by the revision petitioner in her counter filed resisting the eviction petition in RC no. 231 of 1996 was that she worked under the late father of Smt. Noorjahan Begum till his death and he gifted the schedule property to her under an oral Gift in her favour and therefore, there has been no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between her and late Noorjahan Begum. While the main eviction in R. C. No. 231 of 1996 was pending, late Noorjahan Begum, the mother of the respondents filed I. A. No. 853 of 1996 under Section 11 (1) of th