This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05-08-2004 passed in C.M.A.No.21 of 2000 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada confirming the order dated 15-09-200 passed in R.C.C.No.1 of 1999 by the Rent Controller - cum - Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram.

2. The petitioners herein are the tenants and the respondents are the landlords in respect of the premises bearing No.11-100-1, situated at Vuyyuru, Krishna District. The first respondent herein filed eviction petition in R.C.C.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram against the first petitioner herein seeking his eviction from the aforesaid premises on the grounds of wilful default and personal occupation under sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short the Act). The learned Rent Controller, by order dated 15-09-2000, allowed the eviction petition on both the grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the first petitioner, Kareem Hussain, preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.21 of 2000 and the Rent Appellate Authority, by order dated 05-08-2004, dismissed the appeal upholding both the grounds. During the pendency of the appeal, the original tenant and original landlord died and their legal representatives were brought on record.

3. For the purpose of convenience the petitioner herein are referred to as tenants and the respondents are referred to as landlords.

4. It is the case of the landlord, Veeranki Rama Krishna Prasad, that he purchased the suit schedule premises under EX.A-1 sale deed dated 07-11-1996 for a consideration of Rs 4,10,000/- from one Nancharamma and since then he became the owner of the said property. It is stated that before the suit schedule property was purchased, the respondent was one of the tenants in respect of the property covered by EX.A-1 sale deed and there were two more tenants. The landlord being a Doctor wanted to construct his own Nursing Home and, therefore, requested the tenants to vacate the said premises and the other two tenants vacated, but the first respondent herein, who was a tenant on payment of monthly rent of RS.600/- did not vacate. The other two portions were demolished after the tenants vacated the portions occupied by them. It is stated that the tenant is a statutory tenant paying the monthly rent at Rs.600/- per month and after purchase of the said property, he is entitled to receive the rents, he being the landlord, but the tenant committed willful default in payment of the rents ever since the sale in his favour till the filing of the eviction petition. It is stated that the said premises is required for his personal occupation and, therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted. The eviction petition was filed on 19-08-1999.

5. A counter has been filed by the tenant on 30-03-2000 disputing all the averments made in the eviction petition with regard to the purchase of the said land by the landlord and the payment of rent etc. and stated that there is no relationship between the landlord and the tenant. It is stated that, in fact, he is the absolute owner of the said premises as he has purchased the said property for valuable consideration of Rs.50,000/- from the original owner K. Venkata Subbamma on 25-09-1985 and paid the entire sale consideration to her and he was demanding her to execute the sale deed, but she was postponing to perform her part of the contract and ultimately she died on 14-03-1988 without executing the sale deed. As the said Venkata Subbamma was issueless, the tenant kept quiet. In 1996 the vendor of the landlord, namely Mamidi Nancharamma and Mamidi Venkateswara Rao approached him stating that the said Nancharamma is the adopted daughter of Venkata Subbamma and demanded him to vacate the petition schedule premises. Then he showed them the agreement of sale in his favour and refused to vacate the same. Thereafter, he demanded the said Nancharamma t