B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenants under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act ) aggrieved by the judgment dated 4-3-2002 made in R. C. A. No. 42 of 1996 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Control Appellate Authority, Visakhapatnam. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein shall be referred to as arrayed in R. C. C. No. 101 of 1995 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam.

( 2 ) THE deceased first petitioner filed the said RCC under Sections 10 (1) (2) (i), 3 (b) of the Act against the respondents (petitioners herein) contending that he is the owner of the thatched house consisting of four rooms bearing Door No. 58-6-8, covered by Survey No. 150/1 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0-52 cents and other adjacent properties admeasuring about Sc. 7-00. It is not necessary in detail to notice the origin of the right, title and interest of the deceased first petitioner. Shorn of all the details - it is the case set up by the deceased first petitioner that the respondents took the schedule property on monthly rent of Rs. 80/- and accordingly paid the rents till December, 1988, but thereafter committed default. Despite the request to vacate the premises since the respondents were not paying the amounts, there has been no response whatsoever from the respondents. In the circumstances, a legal notice dated 13-5-1989 was issued demanding arrears of rent and also requiring the respondents to vacate the schedule property. The respondents refused to vacate the same and under those circumstances, the deceased first petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and accordingly filed the eviction petition.

( 3 ) DURING the course of pendency of the RCC, the first petitioner died and petitioners 2 to 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The respondents filed a detailed counter inter alia denying the material allegations and averments made in the eviction petition. It is the case of the respondents that the land originally belongs to Visakhapatnam Zilla Parishad. Since the time of their forefathers and ancestors, the said land remained in their possession and several other poor and houseless families. They have raised thatched houses individually about 50 years back and continued to be in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same in their own right openly to the knowledge of all including the Zilla Parishad. They have set up a plea of adverse possession. They have denied the right, title and interest of the petitioners in the schedule property.

( 4 ) THE learned Rent Controller has framed the following points for his consideration: 1. Whether the denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondent is bonafide? 2. Whether there is any landlord and tenant relationship in between the petitioner and respondent? 3. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted, on the ground of wilful default of payment of rent and the petitioner required the petition schedule premises for their personal occupation? The learned Rent Controller held that the denial of title of the first petitioner by the respondents is bona fide and that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and consequently held that the question of payment of rents as such does not arise and accordingly dismissed the eviction petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners-landlords preferred an appeal in R. C. A. No. 42 of 1996 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam challenging the said order of the learned Rent Controller. The learned appellate authority having re-appreciated the evidence found that the evidence let in by the petitioners clearly established the title and ownership of the deceased first petitioner. The appellate authority accordingly found that the documentary evidence prima facie reveals that the deceased firs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document