1. These two revisions are between the same parties and in relation to the same premises. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

2. The petitioner is tenant of the deceased 1st respondent (for short ‘respondent’) as regards the respective suit schedule properties situated at Feelkhana, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. The tenancy commenced in the year 1980 with monthly rent of Rs.35/- for each of the mulgies. The respondent filed R.C. No.288 of 2002 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioner by raising grounds of wilful default in payment of rents and mala fide denial of title. It was pleaded that the rent for a period of 43 months @ Rs.135/- was not paid and though the premises was taken on lease from the respondent, the petitioner filed O.S. No.39 of 2000 in the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, denying the title of the respondent. Through order, dated 06-04-2004, the learned Rent Controller allowed the R.C. and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner filed R.A. No.125 of 2004 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was dismissed through order, dated 26-06-2008, against which CRP No.3550 of 2008 is filed.

After dismissal of the Rent Appeal, the respondent filed E.P. No.13 of 2008. In that E.P., the petitioner filed E.A. No.10 of 2009 under Rule – 1 of Order – XVI CPC with a prayer to summon four witnesses to depose in the E.P. According to him, the respondent forged a sale deed in favour of Mohammed Fasiuddin, who filed O.S. No.54 of 2008 before the A.P. Walf Tribunal and in view of the stand taken therein, it is necessary to summon all the witnesses. The application was dismissed by the Executing Court on 16-02-2009. The same is challenged in CRP No.1079 of 2009.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the premises were owned by the A.P. Wakf Board and the respondent was only the Mutawalli of the Wakf. He contends that the petitioner is the tenant of the Wakf Board and the respondent has no authority to initiate proceedings for eviction. Learned counsel submits that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority did not take into account the fact that the Wakf Board itself issued proceedings in relation to the premises and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for ordering eviction of the petitioner. He submits that the Executing Court ought to have summoned the witnesses named in E.A. No.10 of 2009.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once the petitioner himself took the premises on rent from the respondent, under a rental deed, marked as Ex.P-9, it was not at all open to him to dispute the title. He submits that the petitioner did not dispute the fact that he discontinued payment of rents to the respondents and default was spread over for a period of two years. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner himself filed O.S No.1458 of 1992 wherein he not only stated that the respondent is landlord, but also the Wakf Board has no right over the premises and in that view of the matter, there were no basis for the stand taken by him in the present set of proceedings.

5. The respondents sought eviction of the petitioner from the schedule premises by raising two grounds, viz., denial of title and wilful default in payment of rents. The petitioner did not dispute that he did not pay the rents to the respondent for quite a considerable period. However, the plea raised by him was that the A.P. Wakf Board is the owner of the premises and that the respondent was acting only as a Mutawalli. The Rent Control Court framed the following points for its consideration:

i) Whether the demised premises is Wakf property and if so whether this Rent Controller has jurisdiction to try the R.C.?

ii) Whether the respondent committed default in payment of rent from January 1999 to July 2002?

iii) Whether the denial title of the respondent is bonafide?

6. The respondent deposed as PW-1 an