Petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the landlady of the premises in question bearing Dr.No.11-217 with electricity service connection No.370, which is fully described in the petition schedule situated at Palakonda (Village and Mandal) of Srikakulam District.

2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the eviction petition in R.C.C.No.1 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Rajam.

3. The landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short the Act) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents from August 1992 to June 1993. It is the case of the landlady that she is the owner and enjoyer of two roomed tiled house situated in Gedelavari Street, Ward NO.11 of Palakonda bearing Door NO.11-270 with Electric Service Connection No.370 and she has been attending the maintenance and repairs of the said house by paying the house tax, electrical consumption charges and she has been letting out the house for rent and she was in occupation and the respondent-tenant, who was residing just by the eastern side of her house, took the schedule house on lease from 06-08-1992 to 05-07 -1993 for a period of 11 months from the land lady to reside therein with his family on condition of paying rent @ Rs.200/- per month and accordingly, a lease deed was executed on 06-08-1992 under EX.P-1. From the date of the execution of the lease deed, tenant has been residing in the said house with his family agreeing to pay the rents by 5th of every month to the petitioner and obtain due receipts from her. On 10-08-1992, respondent gave a slip to the petitioner noting the meter reading, but failed to pay the rents in spite of petitioners-repeated demands and therefore, she got issued a legal notice dated 19-04-1993 under Ex. P-4, demanding him to pay the arrears of rent and also to vacate the house and the said notice was evaded. It is the case of the landlady that she is the owner and enjoyer of the petition schedule property and the respondent is her tenant and he has not paid rent from August, 1993 to June, 1995 and therefore, the said eviction petition was filed seeking for eviction of the tenant.

4. A counter has been filed by the tenant denying all the averments made in the eviction petition about the ownership of the petitioner and the leasing of the said premises in his favour and petitioner attending the maintenance and repairs of the house and paying house tax, electric consumption charges etc. there is total denial of the landlord and tenant relationship. The execution of the lease deed and non-payment of rents also denied. It is stated that the lease deed said to have been executed is not true, valid and binding on the tenant and there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, and as such, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition.

5. A separate case has been set up by the tenant stating that Sri M.K. Jagannadharao is the original owner and the said M.K. Jagannadharao has five sons and two daughters and petitioner is daughter of said Jagannadha Rao and the wife of Sri M.S. Patnaikandone Sri M.V. Ramanamurthy, the son of M.K. Jagannadharao is the son-in-law of Sri M.S. Patnaik and the petition schedule property is under the management of Sri M. Govinda Rao, son of M.K. Jagannadharao and the said Govinda Rao let out the said premises on 09-08-1992 on a monthly rent of RS.225/- with the consent of all the brothers. The said M. Govinda Rao was examined as R.W.2, as the landlord. It is also stated that the respondent is the tenant of said Govinda Rao, and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and him as landlady and tenant, and he as a tenant, used to pay the rents to the said Govinda Rao and at times to his brothers. It is also stated that the husband of the landlady, who is an advocate sent registered notice on 04-05-