IMPORTANT POINT
Strict compliance with statutory procedures is essential for tenants seeking to deposit rent under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

ORDER :

(Nyapathy Vijay, J.)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 31.08.2016 in R.C.A.No.14 of 2015 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur as confirmed in R.C.C.No.36 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, dated 20.02.2015.

2. The R.C.C.No.36 of 2013 was filed for a direction to deposit rent of Rs.2,700/- per month from July, 2013 and for costs and other reliefs. The petitioner pleaded that he is carrying on business in advertisements of various media and had taken the schedule premises on lease from the respondent. But, the respondent developed an intention to vacate the petitioner with an intention to lease out the schedule premises for higher rent. As there was threat of dispossession, the petitioner filed O.S.No.491 of 2013 on the file the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur against the respondent for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the respondent refused to receive the rent in the usual manner and the petitioner was constrained to send the money through Money Order on 06.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.2,750/- in advance for the month of August, 2013. The Money Order was returned by the respondent and the petitioner had to send the rent through Pay Order No.460779, dated 23.08.2023 along with a registered legal notice dated 24.08.2013. The said amount was also refused by the respondent and a reply notice was issued on 30.08.2013. Hence, the application was filed by the petitioner to deposit the rents in Court as provided under Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The respondent/land lord filed counter denying the contentions of the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner was irregular in payment of rent and though the Pay Order sent by the petitioner was admitted, but it was contended that the petitioner was due rents from the months of January, 2013 to June, 2013. The respondent also filed R.C.C.No.38 of 2013 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner/tenant failed to pay rents from January, 2013 till the date of filing of R.C.C. On 06.07.2013, the respondent/landlord issued legal notice demanding the petitioner/tenant to pay arrears of rent and vacate the schedule shop for his personal occupation as his son is unemployed and intends to do business in the schedule property. The petitioner filed counter disputing his contentions. The Rent Controller framed two issues in R.C.C.No.36 of 2013, which read as under:-

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek permission to deposit the rents before the Rent Controller?

ii) To what relief?

3. The Rent Controller pursuant to Memo dated 10.06.2014 clubbed both the cases and a common evidence was recorded in R.C.C.No.38 of 2013 and the same was treated as evidence in R.C.C.No.36 of 2013.

4. In the course of trial, P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the landlord/respondent and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked.

5. The Rent Controller passed Common Order dismissing R.C.C.No.36 of 2013 and allowing R.C.C.No.38 of 2013 vide Order dated 20.02.2013.

6. As against the Common Order, the petitioner thereupon filed R.C.A.No.14 of 2015 and R.C.A.No.15 of 2015. The Lower Appellate Court passed Common Judgment in both the R.C.As. R.C.A.No.14 of 2015 filed against R.C.C.No.36 of 2013 was dismissed and the R.C.A.No.15 of 2015 was allowed and remanded to trial Court with a direction to give an opportunity to the tenant to file the documents with regard to payment of rent for the period from February, 2013 to April, 2013 and to adduce evidence on both sides.

7. As against the order in R.C.A.No.15 of 2015, no Civil Revision Petition is filed. Before proceeding with the hearing of the Revision Petition, this Court called for the status of R.C.C.No.38 of 2013 after remand by the Appellate Court. Vide letter d