1. This revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.07.2009 passed in R.A.No.91 of 2007 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (‘the appellate authority’, for brevity), whereby and whereunder, the order dated 27.02.2007 passed in R.C.No.12 of 2004 by the IV Additional Rent Controller – cum – XVI Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad (‘the Rent Controller’, for brevity) was set aside.

2. The petitioner herein is the landlord and the respondent herein is the tenant of the premises bearing municipal No.10-2-317/1/B2, situated at New Mallepally, Hyderabad (petition schedule premises). For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Rent Controller.

3. Shorn of other details, the brief case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the petition schedule premises and that the respondent entered into the petition schedule premises as a tenant under Ex.B.1 – Rental Agreement dated 22.04.1997 for a period of 11 months and that the agreed rent is Rs.950/- per month exclusive of electricity and water charges payable on 5th of each calendar month. Alleging that the respondent was not paying the rents regularly from January 2001 till 09.04.2004, i.e., till the date of filing of the RC and as such committed default in payment of rents, the petitioner sought eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule premises by filing the above referred RC under Section 10 (2) (i) of the A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The petitioner has shown the boundaries of the petition schedule premises as North = Owners property and 40 feet road; South = Naala (drainage); East = 60 feet road and neighbours property; and West = Owners property; and the total extent is 46 square yards.

4. The respondent contested the matter and filed a detailed counter. The sum and substance of his case is that he is not the tenant of the petitioner in the petition schedule premises and, therefore, the question of paying of rents or committing default in payment of rents to the petitioner does not arise. He denied the specific averment of the petitioner with regard to default in payment of rents. His specific case is that he is the absolute owner of the petition schedule premises and that the municipal number of the said premises is 10-2-300/8/12 admeasuring 86 square yards. It is also alleged that the petitioner has wrongly shown the address of the respondent as 10-2-317/1/B2. The respondent’s further case is that he is the owner of the premises bearing municipal number 10-2-300/8/12 admeasuring 86 square yards, which he purchased along with his father under registered sale deed vide document No.2149 of 1985 with boundaries West = Road; East and South and North = Neighbours property. It is also his case that the said property has been assessed to municipal tax and that he has been paying the electricity and water charges and thus denied the title of the petitioner over the petition schedule property.

5. The learned Rent Controller framed necessary issues for trial. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.66 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, he himself was examined as R.W.1 and R.Ws.2 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.13 were marked.

6. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the version of the respondent is not correct and his father’s name shown in Ex.B.1 is not tallying with the name in the cause title and that the respondent’s signature appearing on Ex.A.1 – Rental Deed is tallying with the signature available on the notices served on him and that the denial of title by the respondent is not genuine. Holding so, the learned Rent Controller allowed the R.C. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent carried the matter in appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, on re-app