ORDER : (Nyapathy Vijay, J.) 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 31.08.2016 in R.C.A.No.14 of 2015 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur as confirmed in R.C.C.No.36 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, dated 20.02.2015. 2. The R.C.C.No.36 of 2013 was filed for a direction to deposit rent of Rs.2,700/- per month from July, 2013 and for costs and other reliefs. The petitioner pleaded that he is carrying on business in advertisements of various media and had taken the schedule premises on lease from the respondent. But, the respondent developed an intention to vacate the petitioner with an intention to lease out the schedule premises for higher rent. As there was threat of dispossession, the petitioner filed O.S.No.491 of 2013 on the file the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur against the respondent for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the respondent refused to receive the rent in the usual manner and the petitioner was constrained to send the money through Money Order on 06.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.2,750/- in advance for the month of August, 2013. The Money Order was returned by the respondent and the petitioner had to send the rent through Pay Order No.460779, dated 23.08.2023 along with a registered legal notice dated 24.08.2013. The said amount was also refused by the respondent and a reply notice was issued on 30.08.2013. Hence, the application was filed by the petitioner to deposit the rents in Court as provided under Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The respondent/land lord filed counter denying the contentions of the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner was irregular in payment of rent and though the Pay Order sent by the petitioner was admitted, but it was contended that the petitioner was due rents from the months of January, 2013 to June, 2013. The respondent also filed R.C.C.No.38 of 2013 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner/tenant failed to pay rents from January, 2013 till the date of filing of R.C.C. On 06.07.2013, the respondent/landlord issued legal notice demanding the petitioner/tenant to pay arrears of rent and vacate the schedule shop for his personal occupation as his son is unemployed and intends to do business in the schedule property. The petitioner filed counter disputing his contentions. The Rent Controller framed two issues in R.C.C.No.36 of 2013, which read as under:- i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek permission to deposit the rents before the Rent Controller? ii) To what relief? 3. The Rent Controller pursuant to Memo dated 10.06.2014 clubbed both the cases and a common evidence was recorded in R.C.C.No.38 of 2013 and the same was treated as evidence in R.C.C.No.36 of 2013. 4. In the course of trial, P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the landlord/respondent and Exs.P.1 to P.3 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. 5. The Rent Controller passed Common Order dismissing R.C.C.No.36 of 2013 and allowing R.C.C.No.38 of 2013 vide Order dated 20.02.2013. 6. As against the Common Order, the petitioner thereupon filed R.C.A.No.14 of 2015 and R.C.A.No.15 of 2015. The Lower Appellate Court passed Common Judgment in both the R.C.As. R.C.A.No.14 of 2015 filed against R.C.C.No.36 of 2013 was dismissed and the R.C.A.No.15 of 2015 was allowed and remanded to trial Court with a direction to give an opportunity to the tenant to file the documents with regard to payment of rent for the period from February, 2013 to April, 2013 and to adduce evidence on both sides. 7. As against the order in R.C.A.No.15 of 2015, no Civil Revision Petition is filed. Before proceeding with the hearing of the Revision Petition, this Court called for the status of R.C.C.No.38 of 2013 after remand by the Appellate Court. Vide letter dated 18.06.2024 this Court was informed that on remand R.C.C.No.38 of 2013 was disposed of on 18.09.2018 by the Rent Controller directing the petitioner to vacate the scheduled property within three (3) months. The petitioner thereupon filed further appeal R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 before the Appellate Court and the same is pending. 8. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yenumala Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. The Section 8 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed before filing application for depositing rents in the Court. In the present case, the petitioner/tenant apparently did not follow the procedure under Section 8 as no notice was issued calling upon the landlord to specify the bank account as mandated under Section 8(2). 9. The Section 8 of the Act prescribes the procedure to be followed before filing application for depositing rents in the Court. In the present case, the petitioner/tenant apparently did not follow the procedure under Section 8 as no notice was issued calling upon the landlord to specify the bank account as mandated under Section 8(2). The issuance of rent through Money Order would come only when Section 8(2) is adhered to. In the absence of following the procedure under Section 8(2), the petitioner/tenant straight away issued a Money Order under Section 8(4) and subsequently filed R.C.C.No.36 of 2013 under Section 8(5) seeking to deposit rents. The Court below dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 8 was not adhered to. The provisions are sequential and the tenant before an application under Section 8(5) ought to have adhered to the same. 10. The filing of application under section 8 of the Act is optional for the tenant and is not mandated to be filed every time the landlord refuses to receive rent. However, once the tenant opts to file an application under section 8 of the Act, the sequential procedure prescribed under Section 8(2),(3),(4) and (5) is bound to be adhered to. In the absence of adherence to procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act, the orders of the trial Court cannot be faulted with and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. A similar view was taken by a Single Judge of this Court in Gisulal Gulabchand vs. D. Harinarayana, 2012(3) ALD 100 . 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.Palanisamy vs. Palanisamy(Dead) by Lrs and Others, 2003(1) SCC 123 while considering Section 8 of the T.N. Buildings (Buildings, Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 which is pari materia to the Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Buildings, Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 held that the procedure prescribed should be scrupulously followed. The paras 5 and 8 thereof read as under; "Para 5. Mr. Sampath, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the appellant-tenant had deposited the arrears of rent in Court, it should be taken as compliance of Section 8 of the Act. The paras 5 and 8 thereof read as under; "Para 5. Mr. Sampath, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the appellant-tenant had deposited the arrears of rent in Court, it should be taken as compliance of Section 8 of the Act. This would mean there is no default on the part of the tenant in payment of rent and therefore, no eviction order could have been passed against the appellant on that ground. According to the learned counsel, the Court should not take a technical view of the matter and should appreciate that it was on account of refusal of the landlords to accept the rent sent by way of money orders that the tenant was driven to move the Court for permission to deposit the arrears of rent. Since there is a substantial compliance of Section 8 in as much as the arrears of rent stand deposited in Court, a strict or technical view ought not to have been taken by the High Court. We are unable to accept this contention advanced on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel. The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well-settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance of the statutory provisions. Equitable considerations have no place in such matters. The statute contains express provisions. It prescribes various steps which a tenant is required to take. In Section 8 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the tenant is given step by step. An earlier step is a precondition for the next step. The tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute. A strict compliance of the procedure is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step i.e. to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant. We are fortified in this view by the decisions of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal & Another reported in 1995 INSC 784 : 1996 (1) SCC 243 and M.Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu reported in 1996 INSC 1022 : 1996 (6) SCC 228 ." "Para 8. Admittedly the tenant did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8. Admittedly the tenant did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8. The only submission that was advanced on behalf of the appellant was that since the deposit of rent had been made, a lenient view ought to be taken. We are unable to agree with this. The appellant failed to satisfy the conditions contained in Section 8. Mere refusal of the landlord to receive rent cannot justify the action of the tenant in straightaway invoking Section 8 (5) of the Act without following the procedure contained in the earlier sub-sections i.e. sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the eviction order passed against appellant with respect to the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent needs no interference. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, does not call for interference. These appeals are dismissed. We are informed that the landlords have already taken possession of the suit premises in pursuance of the High Court judgment." 12. Therefore, this Court does not find merit in the Revision and the same stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.