D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J.

1. This revision petition is filed against order dated 27.7.2009 in RA No. 203 of 2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad reversing the order dated 20.7.2005 in RC No. 47 of 2003 passed by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

2. RC No. 47 of 2003 is filed by one Mohd. Dastagir against his tenant Shaik Sadiq Ali for eviction from the premises bearing Dr. No. 15-8-517/4 on the grounds of wrongful denial of landlord's title and default of rent. The respondent tenant denied the case of the landlord. In RC No. 47 of 2003, evidence was let in after the pleadings were completed. The petitioner/landlord examined himself as P.W. 1 and marked Exs. P1 to P14. Respondent/tenant examined himself as RW1 and marked Exs. R1 to R16. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller dismissed the application filed for eviction.

3. Thereafter, the landlord filed an appeal before the Additional Chief Judge and Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act in RA No. 203 of 2005. It appears from the record that the witnesses were recalled in the appeal and Exs. P15 to P17 were marked for the petitioner/landlord and Exs. R17 and R18 were marked for the respondent/tenant. The learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and directed eviction of the tenant both on the ground of willful default and wrongful denial. It is this order dated 27.7.2009 that is challenged in the present revision petition.

4. This Court has heard Sri K.K. Waghray, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ali Farooque and M.A.K. Mukheed, learned Counsel for the respondents. The parties are referred to as landlord and tenant only for convenience.

5. The crux of the matter, as can be seen from the pleadings and the case in RC No. 47 of 2003, is as follows: Landlord is the owner of premises bearing No. 15-8-517/4. He pleaded that he and the tenant entered into a lease deed/rental agreement dated 1.4.1987. The tenant was inducted into the premises and the tenant/respondent regularly paid the rents till 1998 but committed default from January, 1999 to February, 2002. He also pleads that the respondent wrongfully denied the title of the landlord. Hence, he sought eviction.

6. In reply to this, the respondent states that the denial of title is genuine as the respondent came to know that the landlord did not have any right over the said property and that the A.P. State Wakf Board is the true owner of the premises. The respondent denied that there is a default in payment of the rent. Parties went to trial and the first order dated 20.7.2005 came to be passed. This was reversed in the impugned order.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Abdul Rehman v. Saraswathi Prasad Singh, 2008 (5) ALD 163 and argued that if the tenant can show that the landlord does not have title, the non-payment of rent and the denial of title are valid. The learned Counsel pointed out that in this case of Abdul Rehman's case (supra), before the learned Single Judge of the High Court also the vendors of the respondent landlord did not have title and therefore, the Court held that the owner did not have any right in the property.

8. In response to this, the learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon Section 116 of the Evidence Act and the decision in Jaspal Kaur Cheema and others v. Industrial Trade Links and others, 2017 (6) ALD 52 (SC), which is to the following effect:

"Section 116 of the Evidence Act deals with estoppel of a tenant founded upon contract between the tenant and his landlord. It enumerates the principle of estoppel which is merely an extension of principle that no person is allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. The tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title. In Aft. Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh and others, AIR 1915 PC 96, it was held that a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title, however, def