C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THE revision petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner filed R. C. No. 676 of 1990 under the provisions of the a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (the Act) seeking eviction of the first respondent from the mulgi bearing No. 15-9-490 on the ground that she committed wilful default in payment of rent from August 1988 onwards. The first respondent filed her counter contending that when the rents for the months of august and September, 1988 were refused she sent the same through Money orders and since those Money orders were also refused and since there was no reply to the notice sent to inform the bank where deposit of rent could be a made she filed a petition under Section 8 of the Act seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rents into the Court and is regularly depositing the rent into the Courts therein and as such there is no wilful default in payment of rent on her part and so the petition is not maintainable.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the R. C. the first respondent died. Respondents 2 to 5 were brought on record as her legal representatives. The revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence on his behalf. On behalf of the first respondent, second respondent was examined as R. W. I and exs. R-1 to R-67 were marked on behalf of the respondents. The learned Rent controller holding that there was no wilful default in payment of rents dismissed R. C. No. 676 of 1990 by his order dated 26-9-1994. Appeal against the said orders in R. A. No. 806 of 1994 preferred by the revision petitioner before the Additional Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad was dismissed by the order dated 4-11-1997. Hence, this revision by the landlord.

( 4 ) THE Courts below dismissed the petition for eviction on the ground that rent is being deposited into the Court within time in the petition filed by the respondents under Section 8 of the Act in R. C. No. 35 of 1989. However, admittedly as and when the amount is being deposited into Court notice of deposit was not given to the revision petitioner and challans evidencing deposit of amounts into the Bank, were not being filed into Court immediately after deposit. Smt. Manjiri S. Ganu, learned Counsel for me revision petitioner contended that as per rule 5 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, (for short the rules ) notice of deposit has to be given to the landlord and since no such notice is given, the deposit cannot be said to be a valid deposit, relieving the tenant of the consequence of being a wilful defaulter under the Act and so it should be held that the appellant is entitled to seek eviction of the respondents. In support of her contention she placed reliance on Sekhar chand Swami vs. Smt. Savitri Agarwalla and chittaranjan Ghosh vs. Abdul Rahman. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the respondents have been regularly depositing rents into the bank and the relevant challans were also filed into Court, though irregularly, and contended that the fact that challans evidencing deposit of money into the bank were not filed into Court immediately after the deposit and notice of deposit was not being given to the revision petitioner will not clothe the revision petitioner with a right to seek eviction of the respondents on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent as no time limit is fixed by Rule 5 of the rules either to give notice or to file the challans into Court.

( 5 ) THE learned Additional Chief Judge by the impugned order in R. A. No. 806 of 1994 observing that the question of default in payment of rents was dealt with in detail by the lower Court (Rent Controller) held that the finding of the lower Court (Rent controller) does not warrant any interference and dismissed the appeal, without giving any reasons independently. So it is clear that the learned Additional chief Judge adopted the reasoning given by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document