P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a C. R. P. filed by the tenants of a building situate in Elueu town. R. C. C. No. 4/89 was filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenants. Pending the R. C. C. , a petition was filed under Section 11 (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) seeking for an order to stop all further proceedings and to direct the tenants to put the landlords in possession of the premises. This petition was filed on the ground that the tenants (petitioners herein) had not paid the rent from 1-3-1988 onwards. That means by the date of filing the R. C. C. , the tenants committed default in payment of rent due for 10 months commencing from 1-3-1988 to 31-12-1988. Even subsequent to the filing of the petitioner, the tenants did not pay the rents for the months of January, February and March, 1989. Hence the petition was filed under Section 11 (4) of the Act, on 10-4-89. The landlords claim that the rent for the premises is Rs. 200/- per month.

( 2 ) THE petitioners-tenants, in their counter filed on 11-7-89, contended that the rent for the premises was only Rs. 50/- per month and that the landlords refused to receive the rent when they offered to pay the same in the month of December, 1988. The learned Rent Controller, Eluru held that the rent for the premises is Rs. 200/- but not Rs. 50/- as claimed by the tenants. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and time was granted for deposit of rent by 1-2-90. The time was extended till 9-3-1990. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed appeal and, by an order dated 5-3-90 in I. A. 347/90, stay of operation of the order in RCC 4/89 was granted. The Subordinate Judge, Eluru (Rent Control Appellate Authority) held that even the admitted rent of Rs. 50/- was not paid from December 1988 to July 1989 i. e. , after filing of the petition. The appellate authority proceeded on the footing that the document Ex. A-2 being a disputed one, that need not be taken into account at that stage and therefore concluded that the tenants should have deposited the admitted rent of Rs. 50/- per month. The appellate Court further observed that the tenants ought to have deposited the arrears of rent before filing the appeal and the appeal ought not to have been numbered as the admitted rent upto the date of filing of the appeal was not paid. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Court directed that the tenants have to put the landlords in possession of the building within one month from the date of the order.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. E. S. Ramachandra Murthy submits that the assumption of the Appellate Court that the rent at Rs. 50/- per month from December 1988 to July 1989 was not paid by the petitioners-tenants is not correct. The learned Counsel states that on 12-7-1989, a sum of Rs. 350/-was deposited into Court by way of Challan towards the rent from December 1988 to June 1989. It is submitted that the rent upto date has been paid on various dates thereafter. It is seen from the statement furnished by the learned Counsel that the admitted rent of Rs. 750/- for July 1989 to September 1990 was depsoited on 6-11-90. Prior to that, seven months rent was deposited on 12-7-1989. The learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. T. Veerabhadraiah therefore points out that the rent for seven months was paid long after R. C. C. was filed, for more than a year thereafter, the petitioners defaulted in paying the rent and it was only on 6-11-1990. 15 months rent was deposited at a time. In view of these irregular payments made by the tenants even during the pendency of the R. C. C. and the appeal and in view of the failure to pay the rents within the time stipulated in the order of the Rent Controller or at the time of filing the appeal, the petitioners have become liable for eviction under Sec. 11 (4) of the Act. This argument is countered by the learned Counsel for the petitioners contending th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document