This batch of revisions arises out of a batch of Rent Control Appeals, being RCA Nos.14 to 21 of 2012, pending in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appeals, in turn, were filed against the orders, dated 29.8.2012, passed by the Court of Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in RCC Nos.41 of 2007 and 49 of 2008 and certain applications filed under Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'), in those two eviction petitions. In fact, the proceedings of such large number are between one landlord and his tenant, in respect of only one item of property.

2. The history of the litigation, upto this stage, is as under:

The petitioner is the owner of premises, bearing No.51-1-2, Sithammadhara, Visakhapatnam, situated in an area of Acs.2.78 cents with 30,000 square feet built up area thereon. He leased the premises to the respondents for a period of 33 years under a lease deed, dated 30.3.1973 for establishment of the office and press of a Newspaper. Initially, the rent was Rs.2,500/-, per month, and after sometime, it was enhanced to Rs.3,000/-, per month, in terms of the lease deed.

Stating that the lease between them came to an end by afflux of time on 31.3.2007, and the respondents committed default in payment of rent for the months of April, May and June, 2007, the petitioner filed RCC No.41 of 2007, under Section 10 of the Act. He has also filed IA No.106 of 2007 under Section II of the Act, with a prayer to direct the respondents to deposit the rents, and in default, to strike off the defence. On receipt of notice in the LA., the respondents deposited a sum of Rs.18,000/-.

Alleging that the respondents committed default in payment of rent for December, 2007, the petitioner filed IA No.31 of 2008 under Section 11(1) of the Act. The application was opposed by the respondents stating that there is no default in payment of rent. It was pleaded that the amount representing the rent was handed over to the clerk of their advocate, and in that view of the matter, there is no wilful default. Two more interlocutory applications were filed alleging default in payment of rents.

The petitioner has also filed RCC No.49 of 2008 against the respondents, for eviction by pleading the ground that alternative premises have been secured by the respondents and that they deserve to be evicted from the premises. In that RCC also, an application under Section 11(4) of the Act was filed alleging non-payment of rent and praying for striking off the defence.

3. After hearing the parties, at length, the learned Rent Controller, disposed of all the interlocutory applications filed under Section 11(4) of the Act, through separate orders, dated 29.8.2012. A finding was recorded to the effect that the respondents failed to comply with the orders for deposit of rents, and thereby, they incurred the liability to put the petitioner in peaceful possession of the premises. Since the orders under Section 11 (4) of the Act were passed in six applications, two R.C.Cs. were disposed of in terms of the said orders on the same day.

4. The respondents filed Rent Control Appeals, being RCA Nos.14 to 21 of 2012, before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 20 of the Act. They have also filed IA Nos.852, 854, 856, 858, 860, 862, 864 and 866 of 2012 under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act with a prayer to stay the operation of the orders, dated 29.8.2012, passed in the respective R.C.Cs., or LAs., as the case may be, pending disposal of the R.C.As. It was pleaded that if they are evicted from the schedule premises even while the appeals are pending, serious hardship would be caused not only to them, but also to quite large number of employees working in their establishment, existing over. the schedule premises. The applications were opposed by the petitioner herein. Through a common order, dated 22.12.2012,