The central legal point established is the requirement for the landlord to prove ownership of the property and establish a jural relationship with the tenant to seek eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

ORDER :

A landlord seeks justice through this revision filed under Section 22(1) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and to set aside the order dated 19.12.2018 of the learned Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.M.A.No.62 of 2015 by which order the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 30.10.2015 of learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in R.C.C.No.102 of 2013.

2. Respondent herein is the tenant.

3. Sri S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri D. Butchi Babu, learned counsel for respondent submitted their respective arguments and cited legal authorities.

4. There is a building situate in Governorpet, Vijayawada. That building is owned by Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad. This building has a ground floor and a first floor. Several tenants are in occupation of this building. One such tenant is Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili. He is managing a godown in the said premises. The rent per month is Rs.3,000/-. It seems that he has been a tenant in that premises since 1998. While so, a part of this building was purchased by Sri Padarthi Sridhar under a registered sale deed dated 20.12.2010. The part of the building that is purchased by him consists of a few rooms in which there are tenants. It is in the backdrop of these facts, the litigation emerged between Sri Padarthi Sridhar and Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili. Sri Padarthi Sridhar filed R.C.C.No.102 of 2013 before the learned Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada seeking for eviction of Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili. His claim is that he informed to Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili about becoming owner of this property and demanded him to pay rents from January, 2011 but the tenant has not been paying. He got issued a notice dated 26.09.2013 and asked him to vacate the premises and pay the arrear rents. He stated that he requires this property for his personal use and occupation and that this building is more than 50 years old and that the tenant has been altering and changing the physical features of it without his consent and knowledge. As against that, Sri Parvinder Singh Kohili filed a counter wherein he claimed that he has been a tenant studiously paying rents to his landlord Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad and the rents have been paid by way of cheques and he was never irregular in paying rents. When he received notice from the petitioner, he contacted his original landlord Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad informing him that he was demanded to pay rents by Sri P. Sridhar and his landlord Sri Kodanda Ram Prasad told him that he never sold this particular piece of property to him and on the other hand, he himself demanded rents for him. Confused by these rival claims, the tenant filed R.C.C.No.13 of 2014 and prayed the learned Rent Controller to permit him to deposit the rents till the issues are sorted out between the two rival title holders. Notices were sent to Sri Kaja Kodanda Ram Prasad as well as to Sri Padarthi Sridhar. None appeared to contest R.C.C.No.13 of 2014. In those circumstances, that petition was allowed. It is further stated that on 25.06.2012 the petitioner and his followers attempted to demolish the premises and other premises adjacent to it and that resulted in registration of Crime No.176 of 2012 by Governorpet Police Station. At para No.9 of his counter the tenant categorically pleaded that the premises in his occupation as a tenant is not part of the property purchased by the petitioner. He further pleaded that there was no attornment. He denied rest of the allegations. He sought for dismissal of the petition. During enquiry, the learned Rent Controller settled the following points for consideration :

1. Whether there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent with respect to petition schedule premises?

2. Whether the respondent committed willful default in payment of rents at rate of Rs.3,000/-