This is a revision preferred by the tenant against the order in appeal R.A. No.278 of 2002 dated 18.10.2006 confirming the orders of eviction in RC No.174 of 1997, on the file of learned Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. The case of the landlord in brief is that the tenant - the revision petitioner herein, executed a rental deed in his favour on 5.1.1990 agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.150-00 by 5th of every English calendar month, for Mulgi bearing Municipal No.20-7-331 situated at Fateh Darwaza, Hyderabad. He did not pay rents for the months from January, 1997 to March, 1997 amounting to Rs.450-00 and committed default intentionally and therefore he was liable for eviction. He also committed default in payment of rents from December 2000 to the end of December, 2001. He also pleaded that the tenant sublet the premises to the second respondent. Therefore, he prayed that the tenant be evicted.

3. The tenant resisted the petition alleging that he did not execute the rental deed dated 5.1.1990 and that it was a forged document. No date was stipulated for payment of rent. The landlord himself used to come to the demised premises every month as per his convenience and collect rents. For the last time, he came on 1.1.1997 and collected rent for the month of December, 1996 and passed a receipt. With an oblique motive, he did not come to the demised premises for the months of February and March, 1997 for collecting rents. On that his brother - Mohd. Taher went to the house of the landlord on 10.3.1997 for tendering the rent, but he avoided to receive the same. Landlord told to him that he would come later and collect the rents on the plea that receipt book was exhausted.

On that he tendered rents through money orders but the same were returned. He paid Rs.750-00 as accumulated rent to the landlord in Court on the first date of hearing Le., 17.6.1997 and the same was received by his learned Counsel. He denied the allegation that he sublet the premises.

Earlier, the landlord filed an eviction petition - R.C. No.1049 of 1986 (old Rc.No.371 of 1984) on the file of learned III-Additional Rent Controller against his father. When it was dismissed an appeal RA No.28 of 1998 was preferred, which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 5.3.1990 and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.

4. The landlord in proof of his case examined P.W s.1 and 2 and himself as P.W.I and filed Exs.P.l to P.6. P.W.2 is an adjacent shop owner.

5. Refuting their evidence, the revision petitioner was examined himself as R.W.I and filed Exs.R.1 to R.49.

6. The trial Court after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the tenant failed to pay the rents for the months from January to March, 1997, and committed wilful default. The contention that he has sent rents through money orders was disbelieved.

7. At this juncture, it may be stated that during the pendency of the trial, the tenant has taken a plea that the real owner of the property in question is Wakf Board. Since the properties belong to Wakf, the dispute is beyond the purview of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings

8. After considering the earlier litigation in OS No.168 of 2000 wherein it was held that the property did not belong to the Wakf, the Rent Control Tribunal held that the landlord was entitled for an order of eviction. The trial Court disbelieved the plea of sub-lease and ultimately it allowed the petition ordering eviction of the tenant granting two months time.

9. Aggrieved by the said decision, the tenant preferred appeal RA No.278 of 2002. The appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence let in by the tenant, opined that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent for the months of January to March, 1997. It also considered the plea as to the ownership of the property and opined that the property in question does not belong to the Wakf. It was negative in the earlier suit. At any rate, he cannot under the guise, deny the title of th