A YESHODA Vs. DIGAMBER RAO SURVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these two revisions are directed against the judgments rendered in r.a. nos.129 of 2000 and 229 of 2000 by the additional chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad.

(2.) the facts that arise for consideration can be briefly stated as follows: eviction petition in r.c. no.621 of 1998 was presented against the tenant by the landlord before the ii additional rent controller, hyderabad. It is being contested by the tenant. The landlord has claimed that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rents and also sought for bona fide requirement of the premises. During the pendency of the petition, la. No.500 of 1999 has been presented under Section 11(1) of the andhra pradesh buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') to direct the tenant to pay or deposit arrears of rent from 16.4.1998 to 30.9.1999 at rs.900/- and also future rents. Thereupon, the lower court marked the written statement of the defendant in o.s. no.2020 of 1998 and allowed the application with a direction to deposit rs.100/- per month being the admitted rent. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has carried the matter in appeal before the additional chief judge, city small causes court at hyderabad. The appellate authority in r.a. no.229 of 2000 has confirmed the order of the rent controller. Thereupon, the tenant has preferred c.r.p. no.3975 of 2002 against r.a. no.229 of 2000. In the meanwhile, the landlord has presented i.a. no.136 of 2000 in i.a. no.500 of 1999 in r.c. no.621 of 1998 under Section 11(4) of the act before the ii additional rent controller, hyderabad to stop all further proceedings and deliver possession. Thereupon, the rent controller has directed the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the schedule premises within one month by stopping all further proceedings in r.c. no.621 of 1998. The tenant once again carried the matter in appeal before the additional chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad, in respect of the said orders passed in i.a. no.136 of 2000. The appellate authority in r.a. no.129 of 2000 has confirmed the order of the rent controller. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant once again preferred c.r.p. no.3928 of 2002. Hence, these two revisions are being disposed of together by a common order.

(3.) the short point that arises for consideration is whether the order directing the tenant to deposit the alleged admitted rent and also directing the, tenant to put the landlord in possession is in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the act.