( 1 ) HEARD Ms. Rama, Advocate, representing Mr. V,l. N. G. K. Murthy, the counsel representing the revision petitioners and Ms. Santisri, the counsel representing the respondents. ( 2 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of A. P. Buildings (Lease Rent andeviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter, in short, referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience, as against the order made in R. C. A. No. 2 of 2004, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The unsuccessful tenants are the revision petitioners. Respondent-Landlord moved I. A. No. 1511 of 2003 in R. C. C. No. 81 of 1999, on the file of the learned Rent Controller-Principal Junior Civil Judge, rajahmundry under Section 11 (1) of the Act for eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule premises on the ground of wilful default of payment of rents. It is needless to say that the said application was moved by the landlord pending R. C. No. 81 of 1999. The learned Rent Controller had not recorded any evidence and straight-away allowed the application directing the tenants to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the landlord within two months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants carried the matter by way of appeal in R. C. A No,. 2 of 2004, on the file of the Appellate Authority-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, and the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order made by the learned Rent Controller in I. A. No. 1511 of 2003, in R. C. C. No. 81 of 1999. Aggrieved by the same the tenants preferred the present revision. ( 3 ) THE only question raised and argued in elaboration by the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners-tenants, is that without giving an opportunity to the tenants to make deposit straightaway making an order of eviction is contrary to the language employed in Section 11 (1) of the Act and rule 5 (6) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules. The learned counsel would submit that the question of making deposit of arrears of rent is something different from establishing the ground of willful default which may be a main ground to be decided in an eviction petition. The learned counsel would submit that the question of making deposit of arrears of rent is something different from establishing the ground of willful default which may be a main ground to be decided in an eviction petition. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Act and rules framed there-under and also placed reliance on certain decisions. ( 4 ) ON the contrary the learned counsel representing the respondent-landlord ms. Santisri would contend that both the learned Rent Controller and the appellate Authority recorded reasons in detail and arrived at a conclusion that the tenants committed default in payment of rents and no further finding need be recorded in this regard. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord also would contend that the tenant is a chronic wilful defaulter and the default was for a period of four years. Hence, the question of affording opportunity to deposit the arrears, if any, may not arise at all in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also pointed to the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in this regard. ( 5 ) I. A. NO. 1511 of 2003 in R. C. C. No. 81 of 1999 on the file of the Rent controller-Principal Junior Civil Judge, was filed under Section 11 (1) of the act on the ground that the tenants are in arrears in payment of rents. As already referred to supra, the application was allowed by the learned Rent controller and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well. ( 6 ) SECTION 11 of the Act deals with payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. The said provision reads as hereunder: -"11. As already referred to supra, the application was allowed by the learned Rent controller and the same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well. ( 6 ) SECTION 11 of the Act deals with payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. The said provision reads as hereunder: -"11. Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction:- (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a land- lord under Section 10, shall be entitled to contest the application before the controller under that section or to prefer any appeal under Section 20 against any order made by the Controller on the application, unless he has paid to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the buildings up to the date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be. (2) The deposit of rent under sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed. (3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1) the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall on application made to him either by the tenant or by the application made to him either by the tenant or by the land-lord, and after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited. (4) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. (5) The amount deposited under sub-section (1) may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the land-lord on application made by him in that behalf to the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be. (5) The amount deposited under sub-section (1) may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the land-lord on application made by him in that behalf to the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be. " ( 7 ) RULE 5 (6) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules specifies a tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made before the Controller shall deposit all the arrears of rent due by him, if any, in respect of the building within such reasonable time, not exceeding 15 days, as may be specified by the Controller. ( 8 ) ON a careful reading of the orders made by the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, it is clear that no such opportunity had been given and in fact no time had been given to the tenants to deposit the arrears, if any. It is no doubt true that there is some controversy relating to the arrears of rent alleged to be due. It is needless to say that it is a matter to be decided whether this would amount to wilful default and whether on this ground the tenants are liable to be evicted or not. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, it is brought to the notice of this Court that on 14. 10. 2004 in C. M. P. No. 13971 of 2004 this Court made an order confirming the interim stay subject to depositing of arrears of rent by the tenants within a month failing which stay shall stand vacated. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in the light of the said order deposit had been made. Certain submissions were made that the rents had already been paid and also in view of the order made by this Court yet another deposit has been made. This court is not inclined to express any opinion about this aspect of the matter, since the same may have to be decided on the strength of the evidence which may be adduced by the parties in this regard. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kanigalupulu Subamma Vs. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kanigalupulu Subamma Vs. Jangala Venkata Ramamma wherein the Division Bench while dealing with Section 11 of the Act and Rule 5 (6) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction ) control Rules, and as to when the right of defence can be taken away and the conditions for exercise of such power held:-"it is obvious from the language of Rule 5 (6) that it contemplates specification by the Controller of the time within which the deposit is to be made. The time that he should give must be reasonable and should not exceed 15 days. It follows therefore that the tenant cannot incur disability warrant by s. 11 unless he fails to comply with the order directing him to pay within specified time. Right of defence, so valuable, for the litigant cannot certainly be rendered nugatory unless the statute is imperative in that behalf or it becomes otherwise inevitable under law. Inasmuch as the penalty contemplated by S. 11 involves an implied negation of one of the basic rules of natural justice popularly known as the rule of audi alteram parem legislature has taken care to make important provisions in sub-clauses 2,3 and 4 of S. 11. These are the safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of the Power by the authorities. Under those provisions not only reasonable time has to be specified by the authority concerned for making deposit but also any default in depositing within the time specified must have to be held to be without sufficient cause before the right of defence may be negatived. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were in serious error when they thought that the tenant incurred the penalty under section. 11 by not depositing the rents in the months of September or October or that the Rent Controller could pass the impugned order without compliance with sub-rule (6) of R. 5 and sub-Sec. 4 of Section. 11. " ( 11 ) RELIANCE also was placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Om Prakash Vs. Patangey Kishanji (died per L. Rs.) and others, on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in T. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. 11. " ( 11 ) RELIANCE also was placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Om Prakash Vs. Patangey Kishanji (died per L. Rs.) and others, on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in T. Ramakrishnaiah Vs. N. Seshadri and on the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in rasheedulla Khan Vs. Bhagawathi Bai. ( 12 ) IT is needless to say that the impugned order by the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller was made without complying with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act and sub-rule (6) of Rule 5 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules referred to supra. It is needless to say that in view of the aforesaid illegality, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and accordingly the same are hereby set aside, especially in the light of the fact that deposit had been made in pursuance of the direction given by this Court while making the interim stay absolute. ( 13 ) FOR the reasons referred to supra, the Civil Revision Petition is hereby allowed. However, it is made clear that the learned Rent Controller shall further proceed with the main Rent Control Case by affording opportunity to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No costs.