1. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the tenant/petitioner/appellant in the unregistered RASR.no.3140 of 2014 is directed against the orders dated 22.08.2014 of the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad passed in the aforementioned unregistered Appeal.

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant (‘the tenant’, for brevity) and the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord (‘the landlord’, for brevity). I have perused the material record.

3. The facts necessary for consideration, in brief, are as follows:

The landlord brought the Rent Control Case in RC.no.13 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the learned II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Cause’s Court, Hyderabad for eviction of the tenant. After full fledged trial and on merits, the said Rent Control Case was allowed on 03.06.2014 directing the tenant to vacate and handover physical possession of the petition schedule property to the landlord. Aggrieved of the said orders, the tenant had filed the aforementioned unregistered appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. However, since rents are not deposited while instituting the said unregistered appeal, the Office of the Court of the learned Chief Judge has taken an objection for numbering the said appeal. A contention was raised that there is no finding in the judgment of the learned Rent Controller in regard to the period of default and that the tenant is disputing the jural relationship. However, since an order of eviction was also granted to the landlord on the ground of willful default, the learned Chief Judge had refused to register the appeal and had directed the tenant to deposit the rents from August, 2010 onwards to have the Appeal numbered. Aggrieved of the said orders, the tenant had preferred this Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the tenant would contend as follows:

Without there being a finding directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent in the order of the learned Rent Controller, the direction given by the leaned Chief Judge in the order impugned is illegal and unsustainable. There is no finding regarding admitted rent in the orders of the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, the question of deposit of arrears of rent, if any, does not arise. The tenant also denied the jural relationship. Hence, the direction to deposit the arrears of rent from August 2010 as a condition precedent for registering the appeal is unsustainable.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the landlord, while supporting the orders of the Court below had contended as follows: ‘The learned Rent Controller by the order impugned in the unregistered Appeal filed by the tenant had categorically recorded a finding that the tenant is a willful defaulter in payment of rents and, therefore, ordered eviction on that ground also. The learned Rent Controller also recorded a finding that there is jural relationship between the parties. It is also stated in the orders of the learned Rent Controller that the case of the landlord is that the rents are not being paid from August 2010. Therefore, the order assailed in this revision does not warrant interference.’

6. In the light of the contentions of the parties and the facts of the case, it is necessary to refer to Section 11 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which reads as follows:

“11. Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction:- (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 10, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that Section or to prefer any appeal under Section 20 against any order made by the Controller on the application, unless he has paid to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be , all arrears of rent due in respect of