This is a revision filed by the tenants against an order of eviction dated 29-06-2006 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R.A.No.326 of 2002.

2. The landlord filed an eviction petition being R.C.No. 306 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, on various grounds and it, was dismissed by order dated 11th September, 2002. In appeal, the order was reversed and eviction was ordered on the ground of willful default. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants preferred the present revision petition.

3. The only question agitated before this Court is that there had been no willful default by the tenants and the rents had been deposited regularly and intimation of deposit of rents had also been given to the land lord in terms of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the Rules’).

4. The learned Rent Controller observed that the case of the landlord was that the tenants had not deposited the rents for the months of June, July and August, 2000. But, the landlord himself exhibited Ex.P-3 ledger extract, which showed at Serial Nos.4,5 and 6 that the rent for the months of June, July and August, 2000 had been deposited. The tenants also placed on record Ex. R. 12 certified copy of the deposition of the landlord in another case being R.C.No.703 of 1999, in which the landlord, who was examined as P.W.1 admitted that the rent had to be paid on or before 10th of every succeeding month. But however, the learned Counsel for the landlord contended that the deposit of rents into the Court has to be intimated to the landlord and in the absence of such communications, even after deposit of the rents, the case would fall within the term ‘willful default’.

5. The learned Counsel for the tenants contended that they had sent the communication through certificate of posting , which was filed along with a challan before the Court below.

6. The learned Counsel for the landlord contended that even if it is taken to be true that the rents had been deposited and the information was communicated, even then, the rent had been deposited beyond time. But, the appellate Court as well as the trial Court concurrently found that the rents had been paid for all the three months within the time agreed by the parties.

7. Now, the only question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether the information communicated under certificate of posting would amount to payment of rent in accordance with the rules.

8. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the landlord relied on Rules 5(4) and 16 of the Rules.

9. Rule 5(1) of the Rules lays down the procedure, when a tenant is desirous of depositing the rent under sub-section 5 of Section 8 or 9 or Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). Rule 5(4) of the Rules lays down the procedure for service of a notice of deposit and specifies that it shall be done in accordance with Rule 16 of Rules.

Rule 16 of Rules reads as under:

16.(1) All notices under the Act issued by the Controller or the alppellate authority and all orders passed by the controller or the appellate authority if not pronounced in open court, shall be served of the person concerned:

(a) personally by deliverilng or tenderilng to him the notice or order: or

(b) if such person is not found, by leavilng the notice or order at his last known place of abode or business of by gilving or tendering the same to some adult member of his family; or

(c) if such person does not reside in the area within the jurisdiction of the Contrfoller or the appellate authority, by sending the same to him by registered post, with acknowledgment, due:or

(d) ........(not relevant for the present controversy.)

10. Admittedly, none of the three modes prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules have been followed in this case.

11. Such questions have been considered by a learned single Judge of this