K. Venkatesh and Another Vs. A. Subrahmanyam and Another

.....required to be deposit by him - maintainability of appeal cannot be challenged on said ground - as per section 20 appeal filed by tenant is valid - tenant however directed to deposit amount within specified period of time. - all india services act, 1951.sections 8 & 11 & a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control rules, 1961, rule 5: [v.v.s. rao, g. yethirajulu & g. bhavani prasad, jj] refusal by landlord to receive rent - deposit of rent in court - held, a tenant has the option to take recourse to section 8 in case of refusal or evasion by landlord to receive rent and if landlord were to not name a bank or refuse even the money order of rent, the tenant can deposit the rent in accordance with sub-rules (1) to (3) of rule 5. the notice to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to..........landlord filed this civil revision petition.3. the main contention is that though under section 11(1) of the andhra pradesh (lease, rent and eviction) control act, no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by landlord under section 10 of the act, shall be entitled to contest the application before the rent controller under that section or to prefer any appeal under section 20 against any order made by the controller on the application unless he pays to the landlord or deposits with the controller or the appellate authority as the case may be, all arrears of rent due up to the date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due until termination of the proceedings before the rent controller or the appellate authority as the case may be. in the instant case the respondents filed the appeal without depositing the amount. hence the very appeal is not maintainable.4. the appellate authority held that the rent controller recorded a finding that the respondents committed default in payment of rent but he had not fixed the arrears payable by the respondents and that since there is a dispute between the petitioners and the respondents with regard to the payment of arrears of rent, the respondents were justified in filing the appeal without payment of admitted rents. i am afraid that the reasoning given by the learned judge is a far fetched one and runs counter to the spirit of the section. if there are bona fides on the part of the respondents, nothing prevented them from paying or depositing the admitted rents before filing the appeal. that was not done in this case. this shows that the tenants want to take advantage of the vague order passed by the rent controller.5. be that as it may, admittedly, an appeal under section 20 of the act being a statutory one, i cannot throw the respondents out of court on the technical plea. the appellate court granted stay on condition that the respondents.....