Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 217 (AP)

Mahender Kumar Gandhi v. S. Ramkumar

2013-03-22

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioner/landlord has filed this revision under Section 22 of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’) aggrieved by the order dt.23-10-2006 in R.A.No.227 of 2004 of the Appellate Authority under the Act-cum-Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversing the order dt.29-06-2004 in R.C.No.483 of 1993 of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. The said R.C. was filed by the petitioner before the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the 1st respondent contending that he is the owner of the R.C.C. schedule premises which was let out to the 1st respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.200/-; the tenancy was oral and rent was payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month; the 1st respondent was irregular in payment of rent and wilfully committed default in payment of rent from February 1992 to June 1992 and fell in arrears of Rs.1000/-; after repeated demands, the arrears were paid on 25-07-1992 which were received under protest; again there was a wilful default in payment of rent for November and December 1992; a legal notice dt.18.1.1993 was issued by the petitioner in response to which 1st respondent sent insufficient amount by way of a cheque for the said two months with reply dt.25-01-1993; petitioner had issued a further reply dt.15-02-1993 denying the allegations and returned the cheque for the insufficient amount; 1st respondent intentionally and deliberately withheld the monthly rent for May and June 1993; and the 1st respondent is thus liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for May and June 1993. It was also pleaded that the petitioner bonafidely requires the premises for it’s own business; the 1st respondent also kept the RC schedule premises vacant without doing any business; and he materially altered the R.C. schedule premises by removing the old existing wooden door on the front door and erecting a shutter apart from removing entire flooring and interior middle wall. 3. 3. The 1st respondent filed counter denying that he committed wilful default in payment of rents and stated that from the beginning it was the practice of the petitioner personally to come and collect rents from him once in four months or once in five months and sometimes even once in a year; there was no reason for the 1st respondent to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner or to feel alarmed when the petitioner had not come for such a long time to receive the rents; the petitioner did not come to collect the rents for the months of November 1991, December 1991 and January 1992; so he sent the amount by means of money order; it was returned with an endorsement “payee not found”; he again sent rents for the period November 1991 to April 1992 on 30-04-1992 by money order which was returned on 12-05-1992; in May 1992 he again sent an amount of Rs.100/-by money order which was returned back to him on the ground that the petitioner refused to receive it; the rent of Rs.100/- sent by money order for the month of June 1992 was refused by petitioner on 02-07-1992; thereafter petitioner expressed his willingness to receive the rent from July 1992 on condition that 1st respondent enhanced the rent to Rs.200/-p.m; a receipt dt.07-02-1992 for Rs.600/- was issued representing the rents for the period November1991 to and January 1992; a receipt dt.25-07- 1992 for Rs.1000/- was issued representing rents for the period February 1992 to June 1992; when he sought to pay the rent for July 1992 @ 200/-, the petitioner did not agree to receive the same and demanded further enhancement; when he sent Rs.200/- towards rent for July 1992 by money order on 24-08-2012, it was refused by the petitioner on 11-09-1992; he sent Rs.400/- towards rent for July and August 1992 which the petitioner received with an incorrect endorsement “under protest”; likewise rents for months September 1992 and October 1992 were received by the petitioner with an endorsement “under protest”; the rent for the period November 1992 to February 1993 was sent by a cheque which was encashed; rents for March and April 1993 were accepted when a cheque was sent, but money orders sent earlier were refused; rent for May 1993 when tendered by cheque dt.01-06-1993 and was refused; he sent a letter dt.11.6.1993 to the petitioner to name a bank so as to enable him to deposit the rents but the petitioner did not reply to the same after receiving it; rents for May and June 1993 sent by way of money order on 02-07-1993 were refused by petitioner; therefore he filed R.C.No.420 of 1993 under Section 8 (5) of the Act seeking leave of the Rent Controller to deposit the rents before him; R.C.No.420 of 1993 was allowed and he was depositing rents accordingly. He therefore contended that he had never committed wilful default; there was no bonafide requirement of the landlord; or of non-user of the R.C. schedule premises as alleged by the petitioner. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. Pending the R.C., the 1st respondent died and his sons were impleaded as respondents 2 to 4. The son of the 3rd respondent was examined as R.W.1 and he marked Exs.R-1 to R-57. 5. By order dt.29.7.1997, the Rent Controller allowed RC No.483 of 1993 and directed eviction of the respondents on the grounds of wilful default, cessation to occupy the premises and material alteration of the R.C. schedule premises. He rejected the plea of bonafide personal requirement. The respondents filed R.A.No.300 of 1997 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad-cum-appellate authority under the Act challenging the order of the Rent Controller dt.29-07-1997. The said appeal was dismissed by order dt.07-12-2000 confirming the findings of the Rent Controller on the grounds of wilful default and cessation to occupy. 6. The respondents thereafter filed C.R.P.No.392 of 2001. In that revision, the respondents did not raise any argument on the ground of non-user of R.C schedule premises by them even though it was one of the grounds on which both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Act had directed their eviction. 7. 6. The respondents thereafter filed C.R.P.No.392 of 2001. In that revision, the respondents did not raise any argument on the ground of non-user of R.C schedule premises by them even though it was one of the grounds on which both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority under the Act had directed their eviction. 7. The revision was disposed of by an order dt.25-08-2003 holding inter alia that the dispute relates to payment of rents of May and June 1993; that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had held that only Rs.381/- was sent by money order under Ex.R-56 when the rent to be paid was Rs.400/- and it was therefore default in payment of rent as the amount paid was inadequate; that Rs.20/- is shown in the postal receipt as having been deducted towards commission which is permitted under Section 8 of the Act and therefore the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on this count are incorrect; the 1st respondent had filed R.C.No.420 of 1993 under Section 8 (5) of the Act on 23-07-1993 and it was allowed; the 1st respondent had contended that rents were being deposited to the credit of the said R.C.; RCC 483/1993 for eviction petition was filed on 17-11-1994 (obviously a mistake for 12.8.1993); there is no evidence on record to show that the amount of Rs.400/- representing rents for months of May and June 1993 were deposited to the credit of said R.C.420/1993 and were withdrawn. If the petitioner had withdrawn the rents deposited to the credit of R.C.No.420 of 1993 then in view of the decision of this Court in Vinukonda Venkata Ramana vs. M.Venkateswara Rao ( 2001 (5) A.L.T. 479 (F.B.), the petitioner cannot maintain the eviction petition; but the evidence is inadequate to come to a definite conclusion on this crucial aspect; both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have not addressed themselves on the questions (i) whether rents for May and June 1993 when sought to be sent by means of money order were refused and (ii) whether the amounts deposited to the credit of R.C. No.420 of 1993 were withdrawn by the petitioner preceding the date of filing of the R.C.No.420 of 1993; therefore it is appropriate to remand the matter to the Rent Controller to decide the issue whether the rents for May and June 1993 were deposited into Court to the credit of R.C.No.420 of 1993 and whether that amount was withdrawn by the landlord/petitioner prior to the filing of the eviction petition by him. 8. After remand, the Principal Rent Controller allowed the RC by order dt.29-06-2004 holding that the 1st respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rent to the petitioner for the months of May and June 1993. 8. After remand, the Principal Rent Controller allowed the RC by order dt.29-06-2004 holding that the 1st respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rent to the petitioner for the months of May and June 1993. He held that the rent was Rs.200/- per month; the petition for eviction was filed on 12-08-1993; although the 1st respondent claimed that he sent the rent for May and June 1993 by money order and filed Exs.R-56 to R-58 (postal receipt dt.02-07-1993, money order coupon and acknowledgment), the 1st respondent’s counter is silent as to what was the rent sent by him for these two months; R.W.1’s evidence is also silent as to what was the rent sent by him; there is no pleading in the counter that the 1st respondent had sent the rents for May and June 1993 after deducting commission charges; although 1st respondent pleaded that he sent a letter dt.11-06-1993 calling upon the petitioner to name a bank to deposit the rent and that the petitioner received it but did not furnish the account, R.W.1 does not speak about these facts; there is no evidence on record to show that there was a letter dt.11-06-1993 and the same was received by the petitioner; there is nothing to show that the rent sent in Ex.R-57 was refused by the petitioner; Ex.R-57 reveals that the rents for May and June 1992 were sent and not rent for May and June 1993 and no reasons were furnished by the respondents that the year was mistakenly mentioned; no steps were taken by the respondents even after remand of the case to correct it; therefore, the respondents have not established that the rents for May and June 1993 were paid by the 1st respondent through money order; R.W.1 admitted that rent is to be paid on or before 5th of succeeding month; rent for May 1993 was not paid by 05-06-1993; rents for May and June 1993 under Ex.R-57 were tendered or offered by 1st respondent at one time indicating a clear violation of the terms of the lease; there is no evidence that Rule 5 of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (herein after referred to as “the Rules”) was complied with by 1st respondent; compliance with the said Rule has been held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in Smt.Arnavaz Rustom Printer, Mumbai and Another Vs. N.D.Thadani (dead) by L.Rs. ( 2001 (4) ALD 652 = 2001 (4) ALT 509 ); there is no evidence on record to show that 1st respondent had deposited two months’ rent as per the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Act after refusal of rent by the petitioner; the 1st respondent has not given notice of depositing of rent to petitioner to enable him to withdraw the rent; it is doubtful whether the 1st respondent sent rent under Ex.R-57 for May and June 1992 or May and June 1993; even if it is taken to be for May and June 1993, the refusal endorsement is not proved; the 1st respondent has not proved that there is withdrawal of rent by petitioner preceding the date of filing of the eviction petition on 12-08-1993; as the 1st respondent had not followed the procedure under Rule 5, it has to be held that there is wilful default in payment of rent. He therefore held that the 1st respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rents for May and June 1993 and the respondents are liable to be evicted. 9. The respondents filed R.A.No.227 of 2004 before the Appellate Authority under the Act challenging the order of the Rent Controller. 10. Before the Appellate Authority, the respondents filed I.A.No.216 of 2004 to receive Exs.R-59 to R-63 as additional evidence. The said application was allowed and all the said documents were marked by consent. 11. The Appellate Authority by order dt.23-10-2006 allowed the appeal holding that there is no delay in filing the challan into Court in R.C.No.420 of 1993 after depositing the rent for May and June 1993; it was filed on 04-08-1993 within five days from the date of depositing the rent; non-intimation of deposit of rent to the petitioner by way of issuing notice does not amount to supine indifference on the part of the respondents in payment of rents for May and June 1993; and the petitioner had withdrawn the rent deposited from May 1993 to June 2002 amounting to Rs.21,400/- on 23-07-2002. He therefore held that the respondents cannot be said to be wilful defaulters in payment of rent and they are not liable to be evicted. 12. This is challenged in this revision by the petitioner. 13. He therefore held that the respondents cannot be said to be wilful defaulters in payment of rent and they are not liable to be evicted. 12. This is challenged in this revision by the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that non-issuance of notice of depositing of rent to the petitioner by the 1st respondent amounts to wilful default warranting eviction of the respondents; the view of the Appellate Authority is perverse and contrary to law; the petitioner is also entitled to seek eviction of respondents on the ground of cessation to occupy the R.C. schedule premises which had already been confirmed in R.A.No.300 of 1997 (Order dt.07-12-2000); the findings of the Rent Controller in his order dt.29-06-2004 are correct and unassailable and should not have been set aside by the Appellate Authority under the Act. He also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Mohammed Izhar Ali vs. Smt. Olive Founseca (died) per L.Rs. and Others ( 2008 (4) ALT 147 (F.B.) and Munnalal (Died) and Others vs. Englarg Pershad ( 2007 (4) ALT 49 ). 14. The counsel for the respondents contended that there is no duty cast upon the respondents to give notice to petitioner about deposit of rents in R.C.No.420 of 1993; mere depositing of rent in R.C.No.420 of 1993 amounts to valid tender of rent to the landlord; the challan evidencing deposit of rents for May and June 1993 in R.C.No.420 of 1993 was filed on 04-08-1993 i.e. within five days from the date of deposit of rents; it is for the Rent Controller to give notice of deposit to the landlord; the respondents were not required either to serve notice of deposit directly on the petitioner or his advocate or required to pay the prescribed fee as per the Rule 17 of the Rules for service of notice by the Rent Controller on the petitioner. They relied on Exs.R-59 to R-63 to contend that the respondents had filed R.C.No.420 of 1993 pleading that the 1st respondent had paid the rent till the end of April 1993; when rent for May 1993 was sent by cheque on 01-06-1993, it was returned on 05-06-1993 as refused; when the 1st respondent sent a letter to petitioner on 11-06-1993 to give name of the bank for depositing rent which was received on 17-06-1993, the petitioner did not name any bank; the 1st respondent again sent a money order for Rs.400/- on 02-07-1993 after deducting money order commission but it was also refused on 06-07-1993; the ledger accounts on the file of the Rent Controller showed that deposit of rents for May and June 1993 was made on 30-07-1993 and the challan was filed on 04-08-1993; on 03-02-1994, R.C.No.420 of 1993 was allowed and the 1st respondent was permitted to continue to deposit the rent as per interim order dt.23-07-1993 in I.A.No.544 of 1993. It was also contended that the petitioner was not entitled to seek eviction now on the ground of cessation to occupy the R.C. schedule premises as this Court in C.R.P.No.392 of 2001 had set aside the order of the Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority (which had accepted the said ground for eviction) even though the respondents had not argued the said ground in the said revision petition; if the petitioner had any grievance against the order in C.R.P.No.392 of 2001 remitting the matter to the Rent Controller, he should have insisted that it should decide the issue of respondents’ cessation to occupy the R.C. schedule premises also and the petitioner ought to have invited a finding from this Court on the said issue as well; the order in C.R.P.No.392 of 2001 indicates that no arguments were addressed by petitioner as well as respondents on the said issue; it is not fair for respondents to rely on a finding of non-user/cessation to occupy at this stage as respondents were deprived of an opportunity to canvass the correctness of the said finding. They therefore pleaded that the revision be rejected. 15. I have considered the contentions of the respective parties. 16. There is no dispute about the jural relationship between the parties and the fact that the rent for the R.C. schedule premises is Rs.200/- pm exclusive of electricity charges. They therefore pleaded that the revision be rejected. 15. I have considered the contentions of the respective parties. 16. There is no dispute about the jural relationship between the parties and the fact that the rent for the R.C. schedule premises is Rs.200/- pm exclusive of electricity charges. It is also not disputed that the rent is liable to be paid by the 5th of succeeding month as per the English Calendar. 17. There is a specific pleading in para 2 of the eviction petition by the petitioner that the 1st respondent had withheld the rents for May and June 1993 intentionally and deliberately and committed wilful default in payment of rent. 18. In the counter filed by 1st respondent, it was contended that rent for month of May 1993 was tendered on 01-06-1993 by cheque and it was refused by petitioner on 03-06-1993; a letter dt.11-06-1993 was sent by 1st respondent to petitioner to name a bank to enable 1st respondent to deposit the rent; even though petitioner received said letter, he did not intimate any bank account; 1st respondent sent rent for May and June 1993 on 02-07- 1993 by money order which was refused by petitioner; consequently R.C.No.420 of 1993 under Section 8 (5) of the Act was filed by the 1st respondent seeking deposit of rent before the Rent Controller; the 1st respondent had been regularly depositing the rents to the credit of the R.C.No.420 of 1993; and therefore there is no default much less wilful default committed by the 1st respondent at any point of time. 19. The burden is on the 1st respondent to show that the rent for May 1993 was tendered on 01-06-1993 by cheque and it was refused on 03-06-1993; that he issued a letter dt.11-06-1993 asking the petitioner to name a bank to enable 1st respondent to deposit the rents; that the petitioner received it and yet failed to intimate the bank account number and the name of the bank; that he sent the rent for May and June 1993 on 02-07-1993 once again by money order; the said money order was also refused by the petitioner; and thereafter he filed R.C.No.420 of 1993 under Section 8 (5) for deposit of rents. 20. 20. In this regard, although similar pleas were also raised by the 1st respondent in R.C.No.420 of 1993 filed before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, no documents were marked in R.C.No.420 of 1993 as can be seen from the order dt.03-02-1994 passed by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in the said RC. In fact, the said order only states that the 1st respondent was granted permission to deposit rents vide interim order dt.23-07-1993 in I.A.No.544 of 1993; he is depositing rents as per the said order; there was no enquiry contemplated under Section 8 of the Act; petitioner can agitate his grounds in R.C.No.483 of 1993; 1st respondent can continue to deposit the rents without prejudice to the rights of both parties in R.C.No.483 of 1993. There is also no mention in the evidence of RW1 that he had issued a letter dt.11.6.1993 calling upon the petitioner to name a bank to deposit rent and that the petitioner received it but failed to furnish his bank account details. There is no endorsement on Ex.R53 and R55 letters dt.1.6.1993 that they were received by the petitioner. So the Rent Controller rightly held that they were not useful to the respondents. Although respondents pleaded that they sent two months rent by money order Ex.R57, no evidence is adduced to establish that Ex.R56 was issued by the postal department by receiving the money order sent vide Ex.R57 and that the rents sent under Ex.R57 were refused by the petitioner. 21. Thus respondents failed to prove about the tendering rent for May 1993 on 01-06-1993 by cheque; its refusal by petitioner on 03-06-1993;sending of letter dt.11-06-1993 asking the petitioner to name a bank to enable him to deposit the rent; and proof of receipt of the said letter by petitioner. 22. Admittedly R.C.No.420 of 1993 was pending by the time the eviction petition was filed in August 1993 but no steps were taken to file the above material (if the 1st respondent had actually done these acts) either in R.C.No.420 of 1993 or in the eviction petition (before it’s remand in R.A.No.300 of 1997) or after remand in the RC or in R.A.No.227 of 2004. The respondents got marked only (i) the affidavit and petition in I.A.No.544 of 1993, (ii) order dt.03-02-1994 in R.C.No.420 of 1993, (iii) petition in R.C.No.420 of 1993, (iv) counter in R.C.No.420 of 1993 and (v) ledger account for 1993-94 vide Exs.R-59 to R-63 as additional evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents admits that it was an over sight in not filing evidence in support of the pleas alleged by the respondents mentioned in para 18 supra and that the matter may be remitted back to the Rent Controller to enable the respondents to mark the said documents . In the alternative, he pleaded that this Court ought to call for the record in R.C.No.420 of 1993 where the documents in support of the above facts are filed but not marked. 23. I am unable to accept the said contention as the order dt.03-02-1993 in R.C.No.420 of 1993 does not disclose that any document is marked therein. So no purpose will be served by calling for the record in R.C.No.483 of 1993. Any remand at this stage would enable the petitioner to fill the lacuna in his evidence and negligence on their part cannot be rewarded by giving a fresh opportunity again. 24. This Court in C.R.P.No.392 of 2001 had pointed out that under Ex.R-56, the 1st respondent had sent only Rs.380/- as against the rent of Rs.400/- for May and June 1993. There is no pleading or evidence by the 1st respondent as to what was the rent sent by him for those two months or that he had sent the rent for the said months after taking the commission charges. In the absence of such a plea by the respondents in the counter or evidence to that effect, they cannot be allowed to contend that they had deducted the money order commission and sent the balance amount by money order to the petitioner. 25. In the absence of such a plea by the respondents in the counter or evidence to that effect, they cannot be allowed to contend that they had deducted the money order commission and sent the balance amount by money order to the petitioner. 25. In this view of the matter it has to be held that – (i) respondents failed to prove that 1st respondent had tendered the rent for May 1993 by cheque and it was refused by the petitioner on 03-06-1993; (ii) no letter dt.11-06-1993 was sent by the 1st respondent to the petitioner to name a bank to deposit rent; (iii) even assuming that such letter was sent, there is no evidence that it was received by the petitioner; (iv) the money order sent on 02-07-1993 was for only Rs.380/- and as it was less than Rs.400/-(total rent for May and June 1993), the petitioner was justified in refusing to receive it. 26. Section 8 of the Act stats as follows: “Section 8 - Right of tenant paying rent or advance to receipt:- (1) Every tenant who makes a payment on account of rent or advance shall be entitled to obtain a receipt for the amount paid duly signed by the landlord or his authorised agent. (2) Where a landlord refuses to accept, or evades the receipt of, any rent lawfully payable to him by a tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may, by notice in writing, require the landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him, a bank into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord: Provided that such bank shall be one situated in the city, town or village in which the building is situated or if there is no such bank in such city, town or village within three miles of the limits thereof. Explanation : - It shall be open to the landlord to specify from time to time by a written notice to the tenant and subject to the proviso aforesaid, a bank different from the one already specified by him under this sub-section. (3) If the landlord specified a bank aforesaid, the tenant shall deposit the rent in the bank and shall continue to deposit in at any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building. (3) If the landlord specified a bank aforesaid, the tenant shall deposit the rent in the bank and shall continue to deposit in at any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building. (4) If the landlord does not specify a bank as aforesaid, the tenant shall remit the rent to the landlord by money order, after deducting the money order commission and continue to remit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building in the same manner until the landlord signifies by a written notice to the tenant his willingness to accept the rent or specifies a bank in which the rent shall be deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2). (5) If the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by money order under sub-section (4), the tenant may deposit the rent before such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed, and continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, before the same authority and in the same manner, and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the person held by the Controller, to be entitled to the amount on application made by such person to the Controller in that behalf.” 27. As regards the deposit of rents to the credit of R.C.No.420 of 1993, it has to be noticed that a tenant can invoke Section 8 (5) of the Act and approach the Rent Controller to make deposit of rents before him only if the landlord refuses to accept or evades the receipt of rent in spite of the tenant having followed the procedure in subsections (1) to (4) of Section 8 of the Act. 28. In view of the finding in para 25 supra it has to be held that the 1st respondent failed to follow the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 8 before filing a petition under sub-section (5) of Section 8 before the Rent Controller to make deposit of rent. Therefore he was not entitled to file the petition RC.420/1993 under sub-section (5) of Section 8. Admittedly no enquiry was done by the Rent Controller while allowing R.C.No.420 of 1993 on 03-02-1994 and in fact, the said order specifically states that any deposit would be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Therefore he was not entitled to file the petition RC.420/1993 under sub-section (5) of Section 8. Admittedly no enquiry was done by the Rent Controller while allowing R.C.No.420 of 1993 on 03-02-1994 and in fact, the said order specifically states that any deposit would be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Although it is stated in the said order that the 1st respondent had complied with the procedure under Section 8 of the Act, the fact remains that no document is marked in R.C.No.420 of 1993 or in this eviction petition before the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority to establish the said fact. Therefore merely because R.C.No.420 of 1993 was allowed, it does not preclude the petitioner from canvassing the point as to non-compliance with Section 8 in this eviction petition. 29. Even assuming that the 1st respondent was entitled to invoke Section 8 (5) of the Act to deposit rents before the Rent Controller, Rule 5 of the above Rules states that the rents should be deposited in the State Bank of Hyderabad; copy of challan for depositing of rent should be delivered in the office of the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority as the case may be; the Rent Controller or Appellate Authority would acknowledge receipt of challan on the back of the challan retained by the tenant and take necessary action for service of notice of deposit on the landlord within 7 days of delivery thereof; the notice of deposit shall be served on the landlord in one or other of the modes specified in Rule 16; Rule 16 states that (a) such notice should be served either personally by delivering or tendering to the landlord the notice of depositing or (b) leaving the notice or order at his last known place of abode or business or by giving or tendering the same to some adult member of his family if he is not found; (c) by sending the same by registered post, acknowledgement due if he does not reside in the area or (d) if none of the above means is practicable, by affixing the same in some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business of the landlord. 30. 30. Clause (3) of Rule 17 states that whenever any notice is directed to be served by registered post by any Court under the Act, the parties seeking such service shall bring into Court process fee calculated at the current rates of postal charges prescribed by Postal Department to cover the cost of sending the same by registered post with acknowledgment due, in respect of the respondent/respondents and the process fee thus payable is to be prescribed by the District Court or in the District of Hyderabad by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderebad. 31. In Mohammed Izhar Ali (3 supra), a Full Bench of this Court after considering all the above provisions, at para 49, held as follows: “49. Therefore, the reference has to be and is answered accordingly in the following terms: (1) Though Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 is directory and optional, a tenant taking advantage and benefit of the said provision has to strictly and mandatorily comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961. (2) While deposit of rent in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules amounts to valid tender of rent to the landlord, the failure to comply with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 requiring delivery of a copy of the challan for the deposit of rent in the office of the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, so as to enable the Controller or the appellate authority to cause maintenance of proper accounts under Sub-rule (5) and give notice of deposit to the person or persons concerned within seven days of such delivery of copy of the challan in one or the other of the modes specified in Rule 16 (paying within a reasonable time the prescribed fee as per Rule 17 for service of such notice, if the tenant himself did not serve such notice directly on the landlord or the advocate appearing for the landlord) under Sub-rule (4), amounts to willful default in making valid payment or lawful tender of the rent by the tenant to the landlord; (3) Sub-rule (1) and/or Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of Rules do not prescribe any time limit for depositing rent after obtaining permission for such deposit from Rent Controller under Section 8 (5) of the Act. A perusal of Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 of Rules, however, shows that after obtaining permission a tenant has to deposit rent every month and as required under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules shall deliver rent challan in the office of Rent Controller or appellate authority as the case may be. A perusal of Section 10(2)(i) of the Act would show that in the absence of any agreement, rent has to be paid by the last day of month next following that for which rent is payable or if there is agreement of tenancy within 15 days after expiry of time fixed in the agreement. This indicates some guidance as to reasonable time for deposit of rent. This indicates some guidance as to reasonable time for deposit of rent. Thus, where a tenant obtains an order to deposit rent, same shall be deposited at least by the last day of the month following that for which rent is payable and rent challan shall be delivered in the office of Controller within a reasonable time so that Rent Controller can take necessary action for service of notice of deposit under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Rules within seven (7) days of such delivery. In the absence of compliance in so depositing rent and delivering challan in the office of Controller, tenant shall be deemed to have committed wilful default, as per conclusions on question Nos.1 and 2 above. (4) There is no conflict between Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(2) proviso on one hand and Rule 5 on the other.” 32. From the above decision, it is clear that if the tenant opts for a procedure under Section 8, he must mandatorily comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the above Rules; he should not only deposit the rent but also deliver copy of the challan for deposit of rent in the office of the Rent Controller in order to enable the Rent Controller to cause maintenance of proper accounts under sub Rule (5); he should also give notice of deposit to the landlord within 7 days of delivery of copy of challan in one or other of the modes specified in Rule 16 (paying within reasonable time prescribed fee as per Rule 17 for service of such notice, if the tenant himself did not serve such notice directly on the landlord or the advocate appearing for the landlord) under sub rule (4); if this is not done, it would amount to wilful default in making valid payment or lawful tender of rent by the tenant to the landlord. 33. In this view of the matter the contention of the counsel for the respondents that there is no obligation cast upon the 1st respondent to either serve notice of deposit of rent in R.C.No.483 of 1993 directly on the petitioner or on the advocate appearing for the petitioner or of depositing the prescribed fee as per Rule 17 for service of such notice by the Rent Controller cannot be countenanced and is accordingly rejected. Mere deposit of rents before the Rent Controller after securing an order under Section 8 (5) of the Act and making deposit pursuant thereto or delivering a copy of the challan or deposit before the Rent Controller would not suffice. In addition thereto, the 1st respondent/tenant was also required to issue notice of service of deposit of rent to the landlord directly or pay process fee in accordance with Rule 17 to enable the Rent Controller to serve notice of deposit on the petitioner/landlord. Admittedly this has not been done by the 1st respondent and therefore, it has to be held that he is a wilful defaulter in payment of rent to the petitioner for May and June 1993. The Appellate Authority under the Act had held that there is no supine indifference on the part of the 1st respondent in paying the rent as the 1st respondent had deposited the rent and also delivered the challan. This view cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Mohammed Izhar Ali (3 supra) wherein the Full Bench has held that service of notice of deposit on the landlord is also a requirement which should complied with by the tenant who had opted to follow the procedure under Section 8 to avoid the label of the wilful defaulter. The Appellate Authority’s decision had come before the decision in the Full Bench and therefore, the Appellate Authority did not have the benefit of the Full Bench decision. 34. In view of this, I do not consider it necessary to consider whether the respondents are liable to be evicted on the ground that they ceased to occupy the RC schedule premises. 35. For the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, the order dt.23-10-2006 in R.A.No.227 of 2004 of the Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad is set aside and the respondents are directed to deliver vacant possession of the R.C. schedule premises to the petitioner/landlord within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.