In a suit for eviction, between landlord and tenant, Court will take only a prima facie decision on collateral issue as to whether applicant was landlord.

1. The respondent herein, a hapless woman deserted by her husband and whose sons are eking out their livelihood pushing carts on the railway platform, has been fighting a lonely and relentless battle, for the past more than twelve years, to regain possession of a small shop in Chittoor Bus Stand from the petitioners herein who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (hereinafter called the Act), against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor in R.C.A.No.2 of 2006 dated 02.12.2013 confirming the order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Chittoor in R.C.C.No.8 of 2002 dated 11.09.2006.

2. The deceased first petitioner (father of petitioners 2 to 5) is the sole respondent in R.C.C.No.8 of 2002. The sole respondent herein is the petitioner in R.C.C.No.8 of 2002 which was filed under Section 10 of the Act seeking eviction of the deceased first petitioner from the petition schedule shop along with other incidental reliefs. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in R.C.C.No.8 of 2002. R.C.C.No.8 of 2002 was allowed on 11.09.2006 and the respondent was directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule shop within two months from the date of the order. The Rent Controller held that, if he failed to vacate and deliver possession within two months from the date of the order, it was open to the petitioner to eject him under due process of law. After R.C.C.No.8 of 2002 was allowed by order dated 11.09.2006, the first petitioner herein (respondent in R.C.C.No.8 of 2002) died and his children preferred R.C.A.No.2 of 2006 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. During the pendency of R.C.A.No.2 of 2006, petitioners 2 to 5 herein filed I.A.No.204 of 2009 requesting the Court below to receive the petition with attached documents. The Appellate Court, by its order in R.C.A.No.2 of 2006 dated 02.12.2013, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.C.No.8 of 2002 dated 11.09.2006. The appellants were granted three months time to vacate the schedule shop. Consequent on R.C.A.No.2 of 2006 being dismissed, by order dated 02.12.2013, I.A.No.204 of 2009 was also dismissed on the same day.

I. DOES A LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONSHIP EXIST BETWEEN THE PETITIONER IN R.C.C.No.8 OF 2002 AND THE RESPONDENT THEREIN?

3. Smt. Sundari R. Pisupati, Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, would submit that the sole respondent in this C.R.P. did not adduce any evidence to show that she was the only legal heir of the original landlord or that the first petitioner herein was her tenant or that he had paid her rent; mere proof of title is not sufficient; a landlord and tenant relationship must be established for invoking the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the Act; it is only if a landlord and tenant relationship is established would a petition under Section 10 of the Act lie to evict the tenant from the property of the landlord; no issue was framed by the Trial Court whether a landlord and tenant relationship existed; the sole respondent in this C.R.P. failed to establish, before the Courts below, that she had put the first petitioner herein in possession; no evidence was adduced regarding collection of rent; no lease agreement was produced to show that there existed a landlord and tenant relationship; and no evidence was let in by her to show that she was the legal heir of the shop owner or that rent was paid to her. Learned Counsel would rely on Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal ; Avulapalle Mallikarjuna v. N.T. Chengalarayappa ; K.P. Janakiram v. K. Suguna Bai ; Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (dead) through LRs v. K.V.P. Shastri (dead) through LRs.

4. On the other hand Sri T.C. Krishnan, Learned Counsel for the respondent herein, would submit that the first petitioner in this C.R.P had admitted before the Rent Controller that he was a tenant o