( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the judgment dated29-12-1989 passed in R. A. No. 41 of 1986 by the learned Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causescourt, hyderabad allowing the appeal filed against R. C. No. 371 of 80 on the file of the learned I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad dismissing the eviction petition filed on the ground of wilful default by the tenant.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to filing of this revision petition are: The petitioner herein is the tenant of the petition premises. The respondent herein is the person, collecting rents from the petitioner, on behalf of the owner of the premises. The respondent herein filed R. C. No. 371 of 80 under Section 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (the Act) for eviction of the petitioner herein with the following averments: The petitioner herein took the premises initially on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/- which was increased to Rs. 100/ -. The petitioner herein is wilful defaulter and did not pay rent from 1-10-1978, in spite of repeated demands made by the respondent, including the registered notice dated 14-4-1980, which he refused to receive. The petitioner received a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as Pagdi from third party and sublet half of the malgi on a rent of Rs. 400/- p. m. The petitioner has no right to do so. Hence the eviction petition.

( 3 ) THE petitioner-tenant filed counter-affidavit with the following averments: He was never the tenant of the respondent herein. The owners of the petition-premises are Anil and Ashok as per the Court decree. She did not let out the petition-premises to him. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and himself. She is not entitled to file the eviction petition. He is neither a defaulter, much less a wilful defaulter in payment of rents. The petitioner has not obtained any pagdi of Rs. 60,000/ - and sub-let half of the malgi to him on a rent of Rs. 400/- p. m. He surrendered two portions of the malgi to the landlord Anil in November, 1980 and has retained 1/3 rd portion of the malgi under a fresh rental agreement dated 5-11-1980 on a rent of rs. 50/- p. m. and carrying on business therein. He has been paying rents regularly till date to his landlord under proper receipt. Two malgi-portions have been rented to Roop Kala Saree Centre by Anil, the owner. The eviction petition is therefore not maintainable under law and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

( 4 ) AFTER considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner herein is not a defaulter and that the eviction petition filed by the respondent herein is not maintainable under Section 10 (8) of the Act which clearly indicates that the Agent cannot file the eviction petition except on the previous written consent of the land-lord and in this case there was no previous written consent of the land-lord before filing the eviction petition. Thus holding the primary tribunal dismissed the eviction petition. Against that order the respondent herein preferred appeal R. A. No. 41 of 1986 before the appellate tribunal. The appellate tribunal reversed the order of the primary tribunal holding that the respondent herein is the land-lord within the meaning of Section 2 (vi) of the act. Against that order the petitioner-tenant filed the present revision petition.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the appellate tribunal is erroneous as per Section 10 (8) of the Act, which reads as under:"notwithstanding anything in this section, no person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the landlord, be entitled to apply for the eviction of a tenant. "no doubt, the person who receives the rent as per Section 2 (vi) of the Act will come within the definition of land-lord, but th