( 1 ) THE un-successful tenant aggrieved by the reversing order sofar as the ground of denial of title of the landlord is concerned, in R. A. No. 175 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small causes Court, Hyderabad, had preferred c. R. P. No. 732 of 2001 under Section 22 of a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (hereinafter for short referred to as act for the purpose of convenience.)

( 2 ) THE first landlord-respondent No. 1 died and the legal representatives were brought on record. The landlords filed R. C. No. 377 of 1989 on the file of the Principal rent Controller, Hyderabad, praying for the relief of eviction on the following grounds : (1) Wilful default; (2) Denial of title of the landlords; (3) Subletting of the premises to third person; (4) Causing damage to the demised premises, impairing its utility and value.

( 3 ) THE learned Rent Controller on appreciation of evidence negatived all the grounds and dismissed the R. C. Aggrieved by the same, the landlords carried the matter by way of appeal R. A. No. 175 of 1997 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City small Causes Court, Hyderabad, wherein, the appellate authority had confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller relating to the grounds of wilful default, subletting, causing damage to the demised premises, impaired its utility and value, but, however, reversed the matter on the ground of denial of title of the landlords and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred c. R. P. No. 732 of 2001 as already referred to supra. The landlords aggrieved by the findings recorded by the appellate authority in relation to the other grounds, preferred yet another Civil Revision Petition No. 2980 of 2001. Hence, both the civil revision petitions are being disposed of together.

( 4 ) THE parties hereinafter would be referred to as landlords and tenants for the purpose of convenience.

( 5 ) SUBMISSIONS of Sri M. V. S. Suresh kumar :sri M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the tenant made the following submissions : the learned Counsel would maintain that the findings recorded by the learned Rent controller on appreciation of the evidence of PWs. 1, 2 RW. l and Exs. Pl to P100, exs. X-1 to Ex. X-4, Exs. R-1 to R-54 and exs. C-1 and C-2 are well considered findings. The learned Counsel also would comment that inasmuch as on other grounds, the findings recorded being concurrent findings, the said findings need not be distributed by this Court and hence, the civil revision petition filed by landlords C. R. P. No. 2980 of 2001 to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also would submit that even if Exs. P-90 to Ex. P-92, the relevant portions of the certified copies of depositions in r. C. No. 257 of 2004 to be taken into consideration, it cannot be said that there is a mala fide denial of title on the part of the tenant. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant provisions of the Act and would comment that absolutely no inconsistent stands had been taken in the prior litigation, where he had figured as a witness in R. C. No. 215 of 1974 and in the present litigation. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant portions of the evidence and would comment that the specific stand taken by the tenant is that this property belongs to hari Bhavan Trust and nothing more and nothing beyond. This stand taken by the tenant cannot be said to be one falling under the ground of denial of title of the landlords. The tenant never had renounced his status as tenant or denied the relationship of landlord and tenant at any point of time, but he had taken a specific stand that hari Bhavan Dharmasala is the owner of the property. The learned Counsel would maintain that the stand taken by even the landlords is that this premises, the adjacent premises and the properties in the locality belong to Hari Bhavan Dharmasala. May be that these landlords are managing the affairs bei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document