S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal filed by the landlady is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 19-1-2001 in Writ Petition No. 3595 of 1996. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly as under: ( 3 ) THE appellant s husband owned 12 acres of land in Survey No. 41/3 of Pedagarlapadu Village. The said land was leased out to the 1st respondent herein on an annual rent of Rs. 150. 00 per acre. The said lease was oral. The 1st respondent was not paying the rents regularly. Normally, the rent was payable during Ugadi days. It is the case of the appellant that due to the advent of Nagarjunsagar canals, the appellant s husband desired to reclaim the land into wet land and accordingly asked the 1st respondent to take up the reclamation work in an area of about eight acres. The 1st respondent could not convert the said land into wet and pleaded his inability. It is the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent handed over the possession of 8-00 acres of land to the appellant s husband and the same was converted into wet land. ( 4 ) THEREAFTERWARDS, the land was leased out to one Marasu Venkataswamy on yearly rent of Rs. 500. 00 per acre and he took possession during the lifetime of the appellant s husband and he has been paying rents to the appellant on behalf of all the legal heirs of the deceased landlord. While so, the 1st respondent filed an application in ATC No. 5 of 1987 under Sections 10 and 15 of the Act seeking to declare him as cultivating tenant of the land. That application was dismissed on 17-11-1987. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred an appeal in ATA No. 200 of 1987 and the said appeal was allowed declaring the 1st respondent as cultivating tenant. The appellant, thereupon, filed WP No. 13745 of 1989 in this Court. This Court passed an interim order on 23-11-1989 directing the 1st respondent to pay the rents for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90. Despite this direction, the 1st respondent did not deposit the rents. The appellant, thereupon, filed WP No. 13745 of 1989 in this Court. This Court passed an interim order on 23-11-1989 directing the 1st respondent to pay the rents for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90. Despite this direction, the 1st respondent did not deposit the rents. Even for the earlier period also the 1st respondent had not paid any rents either to the appellant s husband or to the appellant after the death of her husband. The default is willful and continuous from the year 1978-79 onwards. So alleging, the appellant filed the eviction petition. ( 5 ) THE 1st respondent resisted the application. The 1st respondent contends that after taking possession of the land, he had spent huge amounts for bringing the land under cultivation; that he has been paying the rents regularly and he had never committed any default in payment of rents. Further, the 1st respondent never surrendered the petition schedule lands to the appellant s husband. The land was never leased out to one Venkataswamy and he was never in possession of the land. It is further stated that in pursuance of the directions of this Court when rents were offered to the appellant, she refused to take the same. Then, when the 1st respondent sent the same by way of Money Order, it was refused by the appellant. Thereafterwards, the 1st respondent deposited the amount by way of Challan into Court to the credit to ATC No. 5 of 1987 and notice of deposit was given on 6-7-1990 itself. Thus, the 1st respondent is not in arrears of rents. The said Venkataswamy has nothing to do with the petitioner schedule lands. ( 6 ) BEFORE the Special Officer, the appellant was examined as PW 1 and the 1st respondent was examined as RW1. Ex. A1 copy of the interim order passed by this Court was filed. Ex. B1 to Ex. B9 were marked on behalf of the respondents. ( 7 ) THE learned Special Officer on consideration of the materials placed before him came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to pay rents and also failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13745 of 1989 dated 23-11-1989. In that view of the matter, the learned Special Officer held that the 1st respondent committed default in payment of rents within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the learned Special Officer held that the 1st respondent committed default in payment of rents within the meaning of Section 13 of the Act. Accordingly, in view of that finding, the Special Officer allowed ATC 13 of 1990 filed by the landlady. ( 8 ) ON an appeal preferred by the 1st respondent, the learned appellate Judge reversed the finding of the Special Officer holding that the deposit was made by the 1st respondent exactly as stipulated in the order passed by this Court. Further, he came to the conclusion that since the amounts were deposited on 29-1-1990 into the Court, the same would meet the requirement in law and he did not agree with the finding of the learned Special Officer that the lodgment is not the payment as directed by this Court. The learned appellate Judge held:"an important aspect to be noticed is that WP No. 13745 of 1997 filed by the appellant was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 5-4-1990 and the interim order passed by this Court earlier directing the 1st respondent to deposit the rents itself has got merged into that order. Consequently, the petition for directions was also dismissed. In the circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to have any benefit of such interim order, which got ultimately merged into the final order passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The cause of action based on such interlocutory order is an illusory one and ho relief could be granted to the appellant based on such interlocutory orders. The 1st respondent cannot be held to be a defaulter on the ground that he failed to comply with the directions of this Court. The whole eviction petition itself is liable to be dismissed on that simple ground. " ( 9 ) IN the premise of the above findings, the learned appellate Judge allowed the ATA filed by the tenant and set aside the order made by the Special Officer by his judgment and order dated 1-2-1996. Hence, the landlady filed the above writ petition assailing the validity and legality of the order of the leaned appellate Judge. " ( 9 ) IN the premise of the above findings, the learned appellate Judge allowed the ATA filed by the tenant and set aside the order made by the Special Officer by his judgment and order dated 1-2-1996. Hence, the landlady filed the above writ petition assailing the validity and legality of the order of the leaned appellate Judge. ( 10 ) THE learned single Judge meeting with the allegation that the respondent tenant did not deposit the rents as directed by this Court, in its interim order dated 23-11-1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 13745 of 1990, has referred to the factual finding recorded by the appellate Judge that the amounts were in fact deposited on 29-1-1990 into the Court and the same would meet the requirement in law. Regarding the other allegation that the respondent tenant did not pay rent even in respect of the years anterior to 1988-89, the learned Judge has held:"the question of payment of rents by the 1st respondent herein prior to the directions of this Court obviously does not arise, since even according to the petitioner, her husband was put in possession of the land by the first respondent herein for reclamation of land and the same was let out to one Venkataswamy. The whole story is disbelieved in the earlier proceedings. In the circumstances, the plea that the first respondent committed default in payment of rents in respect of some other period also apart form the period covered by the order passed by this Court, cannot be accepted. A reading of the eviction petition and the counter-affidavit and the evidence available on record would suggest that the whole claim of the petitioner was based on the ground that the first respondent herein failed to comply with the directions of this Court amounting to committing default within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. The said interim order died by its natural death after dismissal of the writ petition. " ( 11 ) IN the light of these findings, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by his order under impugned in this writ appeal. ( 12 ) SMT. The said interim order died by its natural death after dismissal of the writ petition. " ( 11 ) IN the light of these findings, the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition by his order under impugned in this writ appeal. ( 12 ) SMT. A. Anasuya, learned Counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the order of the learned single Judge affirming the order of the learned appellate Judge cannot be sustained in law because admittedly the respondent tenant was in arrears of rent for the years 1988-89 and 1989-90 as on 23-11-1989 as could be seen from the interim order passed by this Court and in that view of the matter, the landlady had acquired a right to seek eviction of the tenant and this fact was lost sight of by the learned appellate Judge as well as the learned single Judge of this Court. ( 13 ) IN appreciating the above contention of the learned Counsel, the preceding proceedings the filing of ATC 13 of 1990 cannot be lost sight of. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge that in earlier writ proceedings culminating in the final order made in Writ Petition No. 13745 of 1989 dismissing the said writ petition, the interim order made on 23-11-1989 merged with the final order and since the writ petition was dismissed, no aid could be drawn from the interim order made on 23-11-1989 by the landlady. Alternatively, it was also found as a matter of fact that the respondent-tenant, in fact, deposited the arrears of rents for the years 1988-89, 1989-90 into the Court exactly as directed by this Court in the interim order referred to above on 29-1-1990. The learned appellate Judge found that the amounts so deposited on 29-1-1990 would comply with the direction of the Court. ( 14 ) AS regards the claim of the landlady that the respondent tenant committed default in the matter of payment of agreed rents even for the period anterior to the years 1988-89, no exception can be taken to the view taken by the learned Judge. It is admitted position that even according to the landlady, her husband was put in possession of the subject land by the respondent for reclamation of land and it is the further case of the landlady that the said land was subsequently let out to one Venkata Swamy. It is admitted position that even according to the landlady, her husband was put in possession of the subject land by the respondent for reclamation of land and it is the further case of the landlady that the said land was subsequently let out to one Venkata Swamy. We are in respectful agreement with the finding recorded by the learned single Judge after perusing the pleadings and the records placed before the Court. The whole claim of the appellant was primarily based on the ground that the respondent did not pay the rents as per the interim direction dated 23-11-1989 and as pointed out supra that ground is not available to the landlady. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons stated supra, we do not find any substantive ground on the basis of which we could order eviction of the tenant on the alleged ground that he has committed default in the matter of payment of rents for the years 1979-80 onwards till 1989-90. ( 16 ) BEFORE parting with the case. Smt. A. Anasuya, learned Counsel for the landlady submitted that the tenant did not pay rent even for the years subsequent to 1989-90 till the landlady took over the possession. This allegation need not be considered in the present proceedings. If that is the factual position, the landlady is at liberty to work out legal remedies as provided under law. ( 17 ) IN the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.