ORDER The Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the Rent Control proceedings in R.C.C.No.27 of 2000 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, dated 6-11-2003. 2. The petitioner in C.R.P.No.2560 of 2004 is the tenant and the petitioner in C.R.P.No.3078 of 2005 is the landlady. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as “the landlady” and “the tenant”. 4. The landlady filed R.C.C.No.27 of 2000 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents and that the petition schedule shop bonafidely required for the son of the landlady to run a business. The Rent Controller, through order, dated 6-11-2003, allowed the said R.C.C. on both the grounds and directed the tenant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule shop to the landlady within three months. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2004 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority-cumPrincipal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. The Rent Control Appellate Authority through judgment, dated 25-3-2004, allowed the appeal in part, confirming the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the wilful default in payment of rents and set aside the finding with regard to the bona fide requirement of the son of the landlady to run a business. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed C.R.P.No.2560 of 2004 and the landlady filed C.R.P.No.3078 of 2005. 5. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any wilful default in payment of rents? 2. Whether the petition schedule shop bona fidely required for the son of the landlady to run a business? 6. It is the case of the landlady that she is the owner of the petition schedule shop bearing door No.7 A-9-75 situated at main bazaar, Eluru, West Godavari District, admeasuring 11 sq. yards and the said shop, which was originally belonged to her husband, was given on lease to the tenant more than 15 years back at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.2001- per month from 30-4-1998. yards and the said shop, which was originally belonged to her husband, was given on lease to the tenant more than 15 years back at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.2001- per month from 30-4-1998. The tenant used to pay the rents regularly and he has paid the rents upto to July, 1998 and from August, 1998, he has committed default in payment of rents at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. In spite of demand to pay the arrears of rents, the tenant did not pay the same. It is further stated that the landladys son intends to do business and he wants the petition schedule shop to run the business. 7. A counter has been filed by the tenant admitting the relationship of the landlady and the tenant and also the monthly rent payable at the rate of Rs.200/- per month from 1-4-1998 onwards and also the payment of rents upto 31-7-1998. Insofar as non-payment of rents from 1-8-1998 is concerned, it is stated that the tenant carried on certain repairs by spending Rs.6,100/- and the landladys son, who was regularly supervising the repairing work, verified the amount and satisfied himself. Then, the landladys son informed the tenant to deduct the same from the monthly rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month from August, 1998, onwards, till the entire amount of Rs.6,100/- is discharged. The landladys son is fully aware of the said fact and suppressing the same, the R.C.C. has been filed by the landlady on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. Thus, there are no arrears of rents payable to the landlady. It is further stated that the landlady demanded to enhance the rent from Rs.200/- to Rs.1,500/- from the month of November, 2000, onwards and when the tenant refused to enhance the rent, the said eviction petition has been filed. 8. With regard to the contention of the landlady that her son is in need of shop to run the business etc., is concerned, it is stated that the landlady is put to strict proof of the same. 9. The landlady was examined as P.W.1 and deposed that the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- was not paid from August, 1998 till the date of filing of the R.C.C. The R.C.C. was filed on 24-10-2000. 9. The landlady was examined as P.W.1 and deposed that the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- was not paid from August, 1998 till the date of filing of the R.C.C. The R.C.C. was filed on 24-10-2000. She did not ask the tenant to enhance the rent from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1,500/- from October, 2000. For the purpose of widening the road, the Municipal Authorities demolished only the steps portion without touching the structure of the petition schedule shop. Her second son Mohan is working in Global Communications and her elder son is no more. 10. The evidence of the landlady goes to show that she did not state anything about the bonafide requirement to commence a business by her son. She also did not state either in the eviction petition or in the oral deposition as to which son, she requires the petition schedule shop to run the business. 11. With regard to the bonafide requirement, the pleadings are not clear or specific and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the Rent Appellate Authority rightly set aside the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to the bonafide requirement of the son of the landlady. 12. Now, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether there was any wilful default in payment of rents? 13. Admittedly, the tenant has not paid the rents from August, 1998 till the date of filing of the eviction petition i.e., for about twenty six months. The rents from August, 1998 were only paid pursuant to the directions of the Rent Controller in an application filed by the landlady under Section 11(1) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short “the Act”) in I.A.No.3985 of 2000 in R.C.No.27 of 2000, dated 29-3-2001. 14. The arrears of rents from 1-8-1998 to 31-5-2001 were deposited on 1-4-2001. Merely, because the rents have been deposited pursuant to the order of the Rent Controller passed under Section 11(1) of the Act, the default committed by the tenant cannot be absolved. 15. The proceedings under Section 11 of the Act are entirely different and distinct from the grounds seeking eviction of the tenant. Even during the pendency of the eviction petition, unless the tenant deposits the arrears of rents and continues to deposit the rents, he cannot be permitted to defend his case. 15. The proceedings under Section 11 of the Act are entirely different and distinct from the grounds seeking eviction of the tenant. Even during the pendency of the eviction petition, unless the tenant deposits the arrears of rents and continues to deposit the rents, he cannot be permitted to defend his case. Therefore, the payment of arrears of rents, subsequent to filing of the eviction petition, will not absolve the tenant from committing his fault of wilfull default. 16. Insofar as the contention of the tenant that he need not pay the arrears of rents as he spent Rs.6,100/- towards repairs is concerned, admittedly, the tenant has not obtained any written permission or issued any notice to the landlady seeking permission for making repairs. If really, repairs are required, unless the tenant complies with the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, the tenant cannot be permitted to carryon the repairs on his own and seek deduction of the rents. 17 Section 19 of the Act goes to show that if the landlord fails to make necessary repairs to the building within a reasonable time after notice is given by the tenant, then, the tenant in respect of the said building can seek a direction for such repairs to be carried on by filing an application before the Rent Controller. In which case, the Rent Controller may direct the tenant that such repairs may be made by the tenant himself and that the cost thereof may be deducted by the tenant from the rent payable for the building. The cost of repairs and the deduction thereof, authorized by the Rent Controller, shall not exceed one-twelfth of the rent in a year. 18. In view of Section 19 of the Act, I am of the opinion that it is not open for the tenant to contend that he has spent Rs. 6,100/- for conducting repairs and that he is entitled for deducting the said amount towards rents. If that be so, it cannot be said that the tenant has not committed wilful default in payment of the rents for a period of twenty six months. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority rightly rejected the said contention of the tenant that he made repairs and that he is entitled to deduct the amount of Rs. 6,100/- towards rents. 19. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority rightly rejected the said contention of the tenant that he made repairs and that he is entitled to deduct the amount of Rs. 6,100/- towards rents. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any illegality or irregularity or impropriety to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Controller with regard to the wilful default in payment of rents, as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 20. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant is granted four months time i.e., till 30-4-2007, to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule shop to the landlady, subject to the condition that the tenant files an undertaking before the Rent Controller by the end of January, 2007, stating that he had cleared all the arrears of rents, if any, and he will continue to deposit the rents by the end of every month and that he will vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition schedule shop to the landlady by 30-4-2007.