JUDGMENT :

A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J.

1. This Second Appeal, by the defendant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2020, passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in A.S. No. 290 of 2015, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2015 rendered by the XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S. No. 1271 of 2012 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule premises.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule mulgi and recovery of arrears of rent contending that the suit schedule mugli belongs to the grand father of plaintiff No. 1 and it fell to their in the family partition that took place on 24.09.2011. The suit schedule mulgi was given on rent to the defendant earlier to the partition. Plaintiff No. 1 and his father’s brother, Mir Inayath Ali Khan, informed about the said partition to the defendant on 24.09.2011 itself. Mir Inayath Ali Khan instructed the defendant to pay the existing monthly rent of Rs. 3,800/- to the plaintiffs. The defendant paid the rent to plaintiff No. 1 for the month of September, 2011, on 10.10.2011. Subsequently, the defendant defaulted in payment of the monthly rents. Hence, plaintiff No. 1 got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 23.04.2012 demanding him to vacate the suit schedule mulgi on the ground of bona fide requirement. The defendant issued a reply to the said notice claiming that the rent for the suit schedule mulgi is Rs. 2,900/- per month; that he is paying the rents regularly to Mir Inayath Ali Khan and that he sent the rents through Money Order to Mir Inayath Ali Khan, but the said Mir Inayath Ali Khan refused to receive the same. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.

4. The defendant filed a written statement contending inter-alia that the plaintiffs are not the landlords and that there is no jural relationship in between him and the plaintiffs. That he was inducted as tenant in respect of the suit schedule mulgi on the basis of an oral agreement of tenancy by Mir Inayath Ali Khan on 23.06.1990 for the monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The rent was gradually enhanced and by the time of filing of the suit, the rent was Rs. 2,900/- per month. He deposited a total advance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- with Mir Inayath Ali Khan and the said amount was refundable. He paid the rents to the said Mir Inayath Ali Khan till September, 2011 and obtained receipts from him. He remitted the rents from October, 2011 to February, 2012, through Money Orders, but the same was refused by Mir Inayath Ali Khan. Therefore, he filed R.C. No. 65 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller, Hyderabad, and the said R.C. was allowed on 04.05.2012. Pursuant to the said order, the defendant is depositing the rents regularly before the Rent Controller.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues for trial. To substantiate the claim, on behalf of the plaintiffs, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.15 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.83 were marked.

6. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, decreed the suit directing the defendant to vacate the suit schedule mulgi, and to pay the arrears of rent with effect from October, 2011 to May, 2012 @ Rs. 3,800/- per month. The plaintiffs were directed to refund the cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the defendant as and when they take possession of the suit schedule mulgi. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence in detail, dismissed the appeal affirming the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the