The court emphasized the importance of establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant and the consequences of willful default in payment of rent.

ORDER :

1. This revision arises out of an order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada in C.M.A. No. 42 of 1991 filed against the order of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada in R.C.C. No. 269 of 85.

2. Tenant is the petitioner in this revision.

3. Respondent filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule premises under Section 10(2)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. Respondent is the owner of the petition schedule property. Petitioner took on lease of the petition schedule premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- payable by the first of every month. By 31-1-1984, the petitioner was liable to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 8,300/-. On 2-2-1984, the petitioner paid to the respondent a sum of Rs. 300/- and committed default in payment of rent of Rs. 8,000/-. The petitioner obtained a receipt No. 16 for the payment of rent from the respondent and the petitioner also signed on the counterfoil receipt acknowledging her liability to pay the arrears of rent. By 31-5-1985, the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. The respondent demanded several times to pay the rents due. The petitioner while promising to pay the arrears of rent, evading to pay the rents. In spite of notice issued to the petitioner on 8-6-1985, she did not pay the rents due. Hence the respondent filed the eviction petition, out of which, the present revision arose.

4. Petitioner filed a counter before the Rent Controller denying that she was a tenant of the respondent and with the following allegations; that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition; that she became indebted to the respondent in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-; that the respondent wanted the petitioner to pay Rs. 500/- every month so that Rs. 250/- would be taken towards the discharge of interest and the remaining Rs. 250/- towards the discharge of the principal. As the time went on, the interest was reduced to Rs. 200/- and Rs. 300/- was paid every month towards the principal amount. Separate receipts were prepared and she was asked to sign counterfoils of the said receipts. Accordingly, petitioner continued to pay the amounts and ultimately she was informed that the debt was completely cleared. However, behind her back, a suit was filed and it was decreed, pursuant to which, the suit building was brought to sale and the respondent became the highest bidder. When the respondent issued the notice to the petitioner, the petitioner having received the same questioned the attitude of the respondent. The respondent took back the notice received by the petitioner and demanded payment of Rs. 80,000/- in case the petitioner wanted reconveyance of the schedule property. The petitioner represented that she had already cleared the debt of Rs. 25,000,/-. Then the respondent declared that he became the owner of the building by participating in the Court auction and petitioner may not know about it and that even though the delivery was only paper delivery by the amin, still the respondent was the owner of the schedule property and the valuation of the estate had increased and therefore the petitioner had to pay Rs. 80,000/-.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the respondent purchased the property in Court auction under sale certificate Ex. A.36 and he took delivery of the premises as per the proceedings in R.C.C. No. 17 of 1976 and Exs. A.37 and A.40 are the delivery receipts by the petitioner and a sub-tenant of the premises. Ex. A.37 was proved by PW 3 and Ex. A.40 was proved by PW 5. Exs. A.7 to A.10 and A.12 to A.26 receipts show that the petitioner paid rents to the respondent as a tenant. Payment of ren