( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is alleged to be the tenant of the premises in question, has filed this revision petition. The respondent herein is the landlord. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as tenant and landlord respectively.

( 2 ) THE landlord filed a petition under Section 10 (2) (i) of Andhra Pradesh buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act against the tenant on the sole ground of wilful default in payment of rents, in the Court of Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad. The learned Rent Controller allowed the said petition by order dated 3-10-1989. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner-tenant filed an appeal in r. A. No. 573 of 1989 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad. The said appeal being dismissed by the appellate Court, the present revision is filed.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant strenuously contended that the impugned orders of the courts below are wholly without jurisdiction. He submitted that in the instant case, there was no relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the respondent herein and in this view of the matter, it is not a matter for the authority under the Rent Control Act He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that the petitioner was the tenant under one Smt. P. Annapurnamma and her sons and after the sale of the property in favour of the respondent herein smt. K. Suguna Bai by registered sale deed dated 31-10-69, the petitioner herein is the tenant under her and he wilfully defaulted in paying the rents and, therefore, both the courts below have rightly ordered eviction of the tenant and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. Thus, with these and among other grounds, he supported the orders of the Courts below.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, I think it appropriate to state the brief facts of the case.

( 6 ) THE respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. She contended that the original owners of the property in question were Smt. P. Annapurnamma and her sons and vide the certified copy of the sale deed, Ex. P-1, dated 31-10-1969, the property in question was conveyed to her and from 31-10-1969, she has been the landlord of the premises in question and she was entitled to rent. In those circumstances, she issued a registered notice, Ex. P-10, dated 17-11-1984, for which the tenant issued a reply under Ex. P-11, dated 5-12-1984 denying that he was a tenant under the respondent-landlord and therefore, he is not liable to pay the rent to her from 31-10-1969. The landlord further stated mat the original owners attorned the tenancy in her favour and in spite of that, the petitioner-tenant did not pay the rent. Therefore, he is a wilful defaulter u/s 10 (2) (i) of the Act.

( 7 ) THE petitioner-tenant filed a detailed counter denying the jural relationship of tenantand landlord between him and the respondent herein. He denied all the allegations made in the eviction petition and submitted that he was the absolute owner of the premises in question and, therefore, the question of paying rent to the respondent landlord did not arise. He further submitted that his father Sri T. V. Pandurangam, after his retirement from the Railway department, wanted to purchase the property in question and, therefore, he entered into an agreement of sale, dated 11-5-1956 with the vendors of the present respondent-landlord by name Smt. P. Annapurnamma and her sons. According to him, agreement of sale was executed by Smt. Annapurnamma and her sons in favour of his father for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid to Smt. Annapurnamma and her sonson 11-5-1956 vide Ex. R2 and the balance sale considerati