( 1 ) THE petitioners herein were the tenants and the respondent herein was the landlord. The parties herein are referred to as tenants and landlord respectively for the purpose of convenience.

( 2 ) THE landlord instituted RCC. No. 3/87 before the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), at Bhimavaram, seeking eviction of the tenants on three grounds, viz. , - (1) Bona fide requirement; (2) Tenants had committed wilful default in paying rents; and (3) Mala fide denial of title of the landlord by the tenants. The learned Rent Controller allowed the Rent Control Case on all the three grounds. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of eviction, the tenants preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), at Bhimavaram, by filing C. M. A. No. 15/90. The said appeal was heard on merits and the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the same. But in the judgment, the grounds of bond fide requirement of the landlord and wilful default committed by the tenants, were decided against the landlord. But the third ground by which the tenants had denied the title of the landlord held to be mala fide, and therefore, the order of eviction was passed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the appellate Court in CMA No. 15/1990, dated 31-3-1993, the tenants have filed the present Revision Petition.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants Mr. P. S. Narayana, and the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord Mr. P. Venugopal.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants submitted that the finding given by the 1st appellate Court is not as per the evidence on record. The finding given by the first appellate Court is very vague, and therefore, it cannot be said that the tenants have mala fidely denied the titleof the landlord. The learned Counsel for the tenants further submitted that it is an admitted posi tion tha t when a parti tion took place between the landlord and his brother, there was no intimation by the landlord informing the tenants that the suit schedule premises has fallen to his share, and therefore, it was submitted by the learned Counsel that denial of title was not mala fide. The learned Counsel further submitted that the tenants have been paying rent to the elder brother of the present landlord, Mr. Satyam. The tenants were not aware that the partition took place between the present landlord and his brother, Mr. Satyam, in the year 1978.

( 5 ) WHILE rebutting the aforesaid arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord pointed out the observations made by the first appellate court in which the appellate Court had gone into certain aspects of the matter and also discussed the nature of the documents filed at the time of trial and held that the suit schedule property fell to the share of the present landlord. The learned trial Judge also held that after 1978, the rent was paid by the tenants to the present landlord and only for the first time in the counter filed in Rent control Case, the title of the landlord was denied. The learned Rent Controller also held that such act of the tenants in denying the title is mala fide denial.

( 6 ) I am in agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned Rent controller. This Court further holds that on this point, the first appellate Court has written a very vague judgment, though the conclusion d rawn by the (first) appellate Court is in conformity with the conclusion drawn by the Rent controller. The evidence on record clearly goes to establish that after 1978, no rent was paid by the tenants to Mr. Satyam, who was the original landlord. The tenants have not been able to produce any receipts on record to prove this aspect, and therefore, it can be held that the tenants have denied the title of the landlord with mala fide intention.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord Mr. P. Venugopal further submitted that during the continuance of the tenancy from January, 1985, the rent was enhanced