M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

Heard Sri M. Basith Ali Yavar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ali Farooque, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. These three Revision Petitions arise between the same parties in respect of the same premises. Therefore, they are being decided together.

3. The petitioner in these three Revision Petitions is the tenant of the respondents. The lease commenced in the year 1997 and initial rent was Rs. 1300/- per month exclusive of water and electricity charges.

4. The respondents filed R.C. No. 86 of 2007 for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds:

(a) That the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rents from December 2006 to February 2007 and that the rent payable at that time was Rs. 1900/- per month;

(b) For causing damage to the suit schedule premises and

(c) For personal requirement of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the wife of 1st respondent was suffering from ill health, that they are residing in the first floor of the R.C. schedule premises, that it had become difficult for them to go upstairs for each and every requirement, and hence they intend to shift to ground floor which is more convenient to them.

5. By order dated 21-11-2008, the said R.C. was allowed only on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the respondents. The plea of wilful default as well as plea of damage to the premises were both rejected by the Rent Controller.

6. Challenging the same, R.A. No. 22 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad insofar as the ground of personal requirement was held against him is concerned, while the respondents filed R.A. No. 37 of 2009 insofar as the Rent Controller had not accepted the ground of wilful default pleaded by them.

7. By order dated 28-12-2010, R.A. No. 22 of 2009 filed by the petitioner was dismissed and R.A. No. 37 of 2009 filed by the respondents was allowed partly accepting the plea of wilful default.

8. Challenging the same, C.R.P. Nos. 396 of 2011 and 278 of 2011 were filed by the petitioner/tenant.

9. Alleging that there is a subsequent default from August 2009 to May 2011, the respondents filed R.C. No. 231 of 2011 for eviction of the petitioner. On 30-08-2013, R.C. No. 231 of 2011 was allowed.

10. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed R.A. No. 197 of 2013 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The said appeal was dismissed on 03-11-2014.

11. Questioning the same, C.R.P. No. 195 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner/tenant.

12. There is no dispute that a sum of Rs. 34,200/- representing the monthly rent from August 2009 to December 2010 was deposited by the petitioner to the credit of R.A. No. 22 of 2009 at the time when it was pending before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This deposit was made by the petitioner in view of threat of eviction by the respondents invoking Section 11 of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, the Act').

13. In fact, it appears that I.A. No. 697 of 2009 was filed in R.A. No. 22 of 2009 stating that from August 2009, the respondents had refused to receive the rents and that the petitioner be permitted to deposit the rent for August and September 2009 @ Rs. 1900/- per month amounting to Rs. 3,800/- to the credit of the appeal and also future monthly rents. It is not disputed by both sides that this application was not decided by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and that it was posted along with the appeal.

14. Rule 5 of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 mandates that a tenant, desirous of depositing the rent not only under Section 8 (5) or Section 9, but also Section 11 of the Act, shall deposit the same, if the building concerned is in the city of Hyderabad, in the State Bank of Hyderabad, after obtaining permission for the deposit of the rent from the Controller; the challan accompanying the deposit of the rent shall be in trip