IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of regular rent payments and compliance with deposit rules by tenants, and it upholds the rights of illiterate landlords to property use.

JUDGMENT

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Sec. 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act') against Common Judgment in R.A.No.33 of 2014 and Cross-objections vide SR No.577 of 2014 dtd. 18/8/2015, whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad set aside the eviction order passed by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.213 of 2009, dtd. 13/11/2013.

2. Petitioner herein is the landlord and respondent is the tenant. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after will be referred to as landlord and tenant. Not only on the ground of the tenant made default in payment of rents in respect of the suit schedule property but also for his personal bona fide requirement, the landlord preferred R.C.No.213 of 2009 for eviction of the tenant. It is stated that landlord is the absolute owner and possessor of petition schedule property and due to past acquaintance, the tenant prayed for lease of the petition schedule property forming part of premises bearing No. 8/3/230/9/E, Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, on an initial monthly rent of Rs.800.00 per month in 2001 for the purpose of running a kirana and general stores with an understanding that whenever the landlord needs the premises for his personal occupation, the tenant should vacate the premises. It is further stated that the tenant was never regular in payment of rents. He committed default from January 2003 to April 2006 and after filing of the R.C. also.

3. The trial Court, after framing issues and also after considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of either side, while rejecting the ground of bona fide requirement or personal use, came to the conclusion that the tenant made default in payment of rent, granted his eviction.

4. The tenant filed the Appeal i.e. R.A. No. 33 of 2014 against the order in R.C. wherein the landlord filed Cross-objections. The learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversed the judgment of trial Court and allowed the Appeal filed by the tenant and dismissed the cross-objections filed by the landlord.

5. Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the landlord and Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the tenant.

6. Learned counsel for the landlord submits that the tenant defaulted in payments of rent for a period of 38 months from December, 2003 onwards till 2006 and that the suit schedule property is required for personal use of the landlord, as such, sought for eviction of the tenant from the suit schedule property. Whether it is mandatory to intimate the deposit of rents by tenant to the landlord and hand over challans, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.D. Thandani (dead) by LRs. V. Arnavaz Rustom Printer,AIR 2004 SC 495 wherein it has been held as under:

" A perusal of the above said Rule shows that the rule making authority has taken care to meticulously frame the rule and lay down a detailed procedure so as not to leave room for any controversy to arise between the landlord and the tenant as to the payment of the rent. The object of framing such rule is that merely because of litigation or a strained relationship existing between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord may not be harassed for realizing the rent thorough a challan as prescribed accompanying the deposit wherein all the particulars provided for by sub-rule (2) have to be given. The challan is in triplicate. One copy is to be delivered to the controller, after securing acknowledgment on another copy which is to be retained by the tenant. Such delivery of copy of the challan containing particulars specified in sub-rule (2) enables the Controller to maintain proper accounts and also to give notice of the deposit to the landlord who can thereafter withdraw the amount so deposited. A failure to comply with the provisions of the rule will result either in the deposit being