( 1 ) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 1324 of 1981 is directed against the judgment passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, in R. A. No. 1 of 1976.

( 2 ) ONE K. Rajayya was the original tenant, who took the premises bearing Nos. 3-4-154 and 3-4-155. Tobacco Bazar, Secunderabad, on a monthly rent of Rupees 100 from the landlord. Rajayya died on 29-1-1971, Rajayyas concubine Seethamma, who has living with Rajayya, at the time of his death, requested the landlord to allow her to continue in the premises in question after the death of Rajayya on the same rent of Rs. 100 per month from 1-2-1971 till she gets an alternative accommodation. The landlord agreed to take Seethamma as his tenant and permitted her to be in the occupation of the suit premises on the same rent of Rs. 100 per month from 1-2-71. As she failed to pay the rents from 1-2-1971 terminating the tenancy of Seethamma and asked her to vacate the premises by January, 1973 and demanded her to pay rupees 2,200 towards arrears of rent. Thereafter the landlord filed eviction petition against Seetahmma on the Ground of willful default in the payment of rents. He also took the ground of subletting alleging that Seethamma had sublet the premises to one Ramanaujam, the nephew of the original tenant, Rajayya.

( 3 ) SEETHAMMA resisted the eviction petition. She denied the landlords allegation that after the death of Rajayya she requested the landlord to allow her to be in the occupation of the premises in question on the rent of Rs. 100 per month from 1-2-1971 till she gets an alternative accommodation and she asserted that she was not the tenant of the landlord. She also contended that Ramanujam, the nephew of Rajayya is tenant of the suit premises after the death of Rajayya. She, therefore contended that she did not commit any willful default nor any sub-letting.

( 4 ) RAMANUJAM filed I. A. No. 462 of 1974 for impleading himself requesting the Rent Controller to implead him as respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition R. C. No. 3 of 1974. He claimed that the was the nephew of the original tenant, Rajayya and he was living with him at the time of his death and he should, therefore be treated as the heir of Rajayya and as the statutory tenant. The Rent Controller allowed his petition and impleaded him as second respondent in the above mentioned Eviction Petition as per the order dated 11-10-1974. Ramanujam filed counter, resisting the eviction petition. He contended that he and the first respondent are entitled to occupy the premises under law as of right after the death of the tenant, Rajayya. He also contended that he was paying rents even during the lifetime of Rajayya. He further contended that he filed R. C. No. 170/1972 under S. 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Building (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter called as the A. P. Rent Control Act, alleging that he was the tenant of the landlord-petitioners father and the petitioner interfered with his amenities of passage etc. But that petition was dismissed for default. He denied the allegation of the landlord that he was the sub-tenant of Seethamma. He also contended that he was paying rent till Aug. , 1972 and later the landlord refused to receive the rents with ulterior motive.

( 5 ) THE learned Rent Controller held that the second respondents contention that he is the tenant is barred by res judicata in view of the decision in R. C. No. 170 of 1972 as the Rent Controller gave a finding in I. A. No. 504 of 1972 in R. C. No. 170 of 1972 that the second respondent is not the tenant and that finding binds the second respondent even though R. C. No. 170 of 1973 filed by him was dismissed for default. Even on merits the learned Rent Controller held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them in respect of the premises occupied by him. But the learned Rent Controller held that the first respondent is the tenant of the petitioner-landlord. He rejected the petitioner