This C.R.P. is filed challenging the order dated 29.06.2010 passed in R.A. No.96 of 2009 by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 25.08.2009 passed in R.C. No. 129 of 2005 by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Rent Controller for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows. He is the owner and landlord of the non-residential building/mulgi bearing No.22-5-226 situated at Kalikaman, Hyderabad. Originally the husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 and 3, namely M. Shankaraiah was the tenant of the said petition schedule mulgi and the tenancy was oral on month to month basis as per English calendar. The agreed rent is payable by 10th of every succeeding month.M. Shankaraiah died on 09.03.2004. The respondents became the tenants of the petition schedule premises. The present monthly rent is Rs.1,000/- exclusive of electricity consumption charges and property taxes. His further case is that the respondents paid rent for the month of July 2003 on 07.08.2003 and obtained receipt No.17 and thereafter they failed to pay the rent in spite of repeated demands. Therefore, he got issued a legal notice dated 17.09.2004 to the respondents calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent from August 2003 to August 2004. Though the second respondent received the said notice, but there is no reply from him and the notices sent to the other respondents were returned as ‘unclaimed’. Alleging that the respondents have committed willful default, the petitioner filed the eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’).

4. The first respondent filed counter and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. Her specific case is that her husband M. Shankariah had been in possession of the schedule mulgies as owner, which he acquired from his father. Thus, her specific case is that her father-in-law M. Brahmaiah, S/o Ramaiah purchased the schedule mulgies from Nizam while continuing as tenant and that her father-in-law Brahmaiah died in September 1956, who bequeathed the schedule mulgies in favour of her husband M. Shankaraiah and that after the death of her husband, herself and respondents 2 and 3 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by doing their goldsmith business and therefore the petitions are not maintainable.

5. After the death of respondent No.1, respondents 2 and 3 filed additional counter and denied that the respondents paid rent to the petitioner on 07.08.2008 and obtained receipt No.17.

6. Then the petitioner filed a rejoinder denying the claim of the respondents and asserting his right in the petition schedule mulgi. The further case of the petitioner is that M. Shankaraiah, the husband of respondent No.1, himself appeared as a witness in R.C. Nos.215 of 1974 and 377 of 1989 on the file of the I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad, and deposed admitting the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and himself and the said admission operates as estoppel against the respondents.

7. The following points were formulated by the Rent Controller for consideration.

1. Whether the denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondents is bona fide?

2. Whether there is any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and the respondents?

3. Whether the respondents committed willful default in payment of rent?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction of the respondents from the schedule premises?

8. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A45 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked.

9. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence,