Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 190 (AP)

K. Venkatesh v. A. Subrahmanyam

2001-02-23

B.S.A.SWAMY

body2001
B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) NOTICE was served on the respondents. None appeared for the respondents. Hence the respondents are set ex parte. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order, dated 13-9-2000, of the learned Principal Senior civil Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate authority, Chittoor in I. A. No. 158 of 2000 in r. C. A. No. 12 of 2000 granting stay of the operation of the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller in R. C. C. No. 2 of 1997 on deposit of Rs. 2,250. 00 towards the arrears of rent for the period from April to August, 2000 and costs of R. C. C. No. 2 of 1997, the landlord filed this civil revision petition. ( 3 ) THE main contention is that though under Section 11 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by landlord under section 10 of the Act, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent controller under that Section or to prefer any appeal under Section 20 against any order made by the Controller on the application unless he pays to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or the appellate authority as the case may be, all arrears of rent due up to the date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due until termination of the proceedings before the Rent Controller or the appellate authority as the case may be. In the instant case the respondents filed the appeal without depositing the amount. Hence the very appeal is not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE appellate authority held that the rent Controller recorded a finding that the respondents committed default in payment of rent but he had not fixed the arrears payable by the respondents and that since there is a dispute between the petitioners and the respondents with regard to the payment of arrears of rent, the respondents were justified in filing the appeal without payment of admitted rents. I am afraid that the reasoning given by the learned Judge is a far fetched one and runs counter to the spirit of the section. If there are bona fides on the part of the respondents, nothing prevented them from paying or depositing the admitted rents before filing the appeal. I am afraid that the reasoning given by the learned Judge is a far fetched one and runs counter to the spirit of the section. If there are bona fides on the part of the respondents, nothing prevented them from paying or depositing the admitted rents before filing the appeal. That was not done in this case. This shows that the tenants want to take advantage of the vague order passed by the Rent controller. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, admittedly, an appeal under Section 20 of the Act being a statutory one, I cannot throw the respondents out of Court on the technical plea. The appellate Court granted stay on condition that the respondents depositing rs. 2,250 / -. At the same time, no time was fixed. Hence if the amount directed to be deposited is not deposited till now, the respondents shall do so within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the stay order granted by the appellate Court stands vacated. ( 6 ) THE civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.