The landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant for any subsequent default in payment of rent committed by him although he deposited in the earlier proceedings rent into court under Section 11(1) of the Act. The dismissal of the earlier application would not constitute res judicata disentitling the landlord from filing a second application for the period subsequent to the one alleged in the earlier application. The landlord is entitled to file a second application during either the pendency of the first application or after disposal.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner is the tenant of a residential premises bearing Door no. 11/254 situated in Apparao Street, Madanapalle, owned by the respondent. The respondent-landlord filed an application RCC. No. 2/75 before the Rent controller Madanapalle seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent for the period from 30-3-1973 to 27-2-75 and also on the ground of personal requirement. That application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 1-8-1977 negativing both the pleas raised by the landlord. The appellate court as well as the High Court in revision C. R P No. 3959/79 confirmed the view taken by the Rent Controller. During the pendency of that application the tenant did not deposit into the court regularly the monthly rents due for the period subsequent to the application. However, a lumpsum amount of Rs. 800/- was deposited by him into court towards the rent for the period from February 1975, to november 1975. After the dismissal of that application the landlord filed rcc. No. 10/78 (from out of which the present revision petition arises) before the Rent Controller, Madanapalle contending that there was wilful default on the part of the tenant in the payment of rent during the pendency of the earlier proceedings. That application was opposed by the tenant contending that the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the earlier application constituted resjudicata and the deposit of rents made by him into the court was in accordance with the orders of the court as and when challans were issued by the court deposits were made. The learned Rent Controller considered the question whether or not there was wilful default on the part of the tenant and answered it in favour of the landlord. He took the view that an application for eviction for wilful default in the payment of rent for a period different from the one covered by the earlier application was maintainable. The evidence of the tenant that he sent the monthly rents by money order to the landlord and as the latter refused to receive the money orders, he deposited the entire money in lumpsum into the court on the advice of his advocate, was disbelieved by the learned Rent Controller. On appeal the learned subordinate Judge, Madanapalle, confimred the order of the Rent controller. The aggrieved tenant has preferred the present revision petition.

( 2 ) WHEN the civil revision petition came for hearing before our learned brother Rumanujulu Naidu, J. , on 9-8-1982, he referred the matter for a division Bench taking the view ;"the question raised in the revision petition is of considerable importance and in my opinion requires an authoritative pronouncement from a Division Bench of this court, the question being as to Whether it is open to a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant for the subsequent default in payment of rent committed by him, after availing himself of the benefit *of an order passed under section 11 (4) obviously a mistake for Section 11 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act as no order was made in the previous appln. under Sec. 11 (4) by the court of Rent Controller in the earlier proceeding for eviction instituted by him".

( 3 ) THE A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for short the act was enacted with the object of regulating leasing of buildings, the control of rent, and the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants. By Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant if the latter has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. The proviso to sub-section 2 of the Section 10 of the Act says that in respect of the matters falling under clause (i), if the Rent Controller is satisfi