L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is the sole defendant in O. S. No. 14 of 2000 on the file of the vii Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad

( 2 ) THE respondent filed the suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule premises, a residential house, and for recovery of arrears of rents. Through its judgment dated 6-3-2003, the trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal.

( 3 ) MS. B. Vijetha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent failed to prove his ownership over the suit schedule property, much less, did he establish the existence of relationship of tenant and landlord, between himself and the appellant. She contends that Ex. A-5, lease agreement, dated 18-8-1999, was not signed by the respondent; was not properly stamped, and in that view of the matter, it was inadmissible in evidence. She contends that Rajeswar goud, the father of the plaintiff, and L. Ramesh babu, was the G. P. A. of the landlord, of one sri Guru Murthy, and since the original owner and his G. P. A. are no more, the respondent herein could not have secured any rights, much less his G. P. A. , L Srinivas Goud. She submits that the trial Court did not take into account, the fact that the appellant had paid huge amounts to clear the arrears of electricity bills, not only forthe portion in his occupation, but also the neighbouring premises, because of the fact that the power was supplied through a common meter.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the denial of ownership of the respondent, over the suit schedule property, is not bona fide and without any basis. He contends that the respondent got issued notice, dated 1 -10-1999, Ex. A-2, requiring the appellant to pay the arrears and to vacate the premises, and in the reply, marked as Ex. A-3, the appellant did not raise any dispute, as to the ownership of the respondent. He further submits that Ex. A-5, is not a lease deed, but an agreement of lease, and in that view of the matter, it was not required to be registered. He contends that even otherwise, the document is admissible for collateral purposes.

( 5 ) IN his plaint, the respondent claimed that he is the absolute owner of the property, bearing No. 293/82/a/185, Ground Floor, at plot No. 185, Road No. 15, Jubilee Hills, hyderabad, and that the appellant is his tenant, on a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/ -. He pleaded that the tenancy is from 18th of a month to 17th of a succeeding month, and that the appellant committed default in payment of rent from July 1998, till the date of filing of the suit. He claimed that a sum of rs. 54,000/- had accrued as arrears, by the date of filing of the suit. He got issued notice, dated 1-10-1999, requiring the appellant to pay the rents, and other charges, as well as to vacate the premises by 18-11-1999. Reference was made to the reply, got issued on behalf of the appellant and the cause of action for filing of the suit; was stated in the plaint.

( 6 ) THE appellant filed a written statement, pleading inter alia that the suit was not presented by the proper party. According to him, the G. P. A. in favour of L. Srinivasa goud, who filed the suit in that capacity, did not subsist, as on the date of filing of the suit. The ownership of the plaintiff, over the suit schedule property, was denied. The very existence of relationship of tenant and landlord, was denied and the plea as to arrears, was disputed. He pleaded that, one guru Murthy, was the owner of the property, and since the said Guru Murthy is no more, it is his legal representative, that have succeeded to the property, and not the respondent. The lease agreement, dated 18-8-1999, on which the respondent placed reliance, "was disputed. He has also denied the obligation to pay any water or electricity charges, or the liability to pay the future mesne profits. The notice got issued on behalf of the respondent is said to be not in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document