The court emphasized the entitlement of the landlord to receive rents from the tenant, establishing the landlord-tenant relationship, and the requirement for proper reasons for reversing trial court's findings.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the judgment, dated 18.01.2018 passed in C.M.A. No. 19 of 2016 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Gudur.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the defacto administrator of Kasivisweswara Swamy temple and its associate property shown in the schedule and the petitioner is the second son of Raja VVRK Yachendra whose ancestors have built their own above temple. The income derived from the schedule premises is utilized for the activities of the temple and the respondent is tenant of the schedule premises and he made a request to the petitioner to give the schedule premises for rent and the petitioner agreed to let out the same for rent on certain terms and conditions, reduced to writing and the respondent gave an undertaking on a stamped Bond paper dated 29.9.2000 under Rental Kharanama with some terms and conditions and executed the same on 1.10.2000 and took possession of the schedule room for lease and that he has ;not been paid the rents from 1.1.2005 till date in spite of several demands made by the petitioner. The petitioner got issued a registered notice on 15.2.2005 and also marked to the said Kareem Basha and the lease period of the schedule premises expired on 31.8.2001 and the respondent has committed willful default in paying the rents from 1.4.2004 up to date and the petitioner got issued a registered notice and the respondent got issued reply notice with false allegations. Hence the petitioner preferred I.A No. 16 of 2005 in RCC No. 3 of 2005 before the Rent Controller-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri (for short “the trial Court”) seeking for eviction of the respondent who is a tenant in the schedule premises on the ground of willful default of the rents and non eviction of the petition schedule premises after lapse of lease period. After careful examination of the entire material available on record, oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court allowed the said I.A. and directed the respondent to pay monthly rents of Rs.250/- from 1.4.2004 till the date of that order. Further, the respondent was directed to vacate the petition schedule premises from the date of that order and also held that if the respondent failed to comply that order, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed against the respondent through process of law. Being not satisfied with the same, the respondent preferred CMA No. 19 of 2016 before the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur (for short “the appellate Court”).

3. The respondent, who is the petitioner herein, filed counter in the above CMA denying all the allegations made in the petition. The contention of the respondent is that he is not a tenant of petition schedule premises. It is also stated that no agreement as alleged was executed by the respondent with the conditions set out in the petition and to take possession as on the date of agreement. Therefore the allegations raised in the petition does not arise and hence prayed to dismiss the appeal.

4. Basing the contentions of both parties, the appellate Court has framed the following points for consideration:

(1) Whether the Rent controller is having jurisdiction to entertain the RCC filed by the petitioner?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction as prayed for?

(3) Whether the appeal is maintainable?

(4) Whether there are any reasons to differ with the findings of the Rent Controller?

(5) To what relief?

5. Upon considering the material available on record, the appellate Court held that no such objection was raised by the respondents during the pendency of the appeal as such now the objection raised by the other side cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover as already discussed above the petitioner failed to prove that he is landlord of the premises and the respondent is a tenant and the tenant fell in due of arrears of rent. As such the deposit of arrears of rent does not arise. Hence the court holds that the appeal is maintainable and in