IMPORTANT POINTS
Finding of fact by appellate court cannot be interfered with under revisional jurisdiction.
Determination of ownership in rent control proceeding is different and distinct from that in a title suit.
Factual submissions cannot be raised for the first time before Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 06.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 5228 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No. 93 of 1998 and restored the judgment dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in R.C. No. 165 of 1993.

2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra.

3) The premises bearing No. 9-3-692 to 694, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “suit premises” was purchased jointly by the predecessors of the appellants herein under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.1904 from Sirigiri Yellaiah, and others, which they sold in discharge of pre-existing mortgage debt to avoid court attachment in O.S. No. 178 of 1900 on the file of the District Court. Since the date of sale, the respondents’ predecessors continued to occupy the suit premises and thus became the tenants of the appellants’ predecessors-in-title on a monthly rent of Rs.10/-in addition to payment of property taxes, conservancy and electricity charges etc. under an agreement dated 01.08.1904. The said agreement was incorporated in a book maintained by the appellants’ predecessors in the regular course of business and was duly signed by the respondents’ predecessors by way of rent every month. After the death of Sirigiri Vishwanadham, i.e., respondents’ predecessor, his four sons became the tenants and continued to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.75/- besides other charges. The respondents are the grand children of late Sirigiri Vishwanadham, who continued to occupy the suit premises as the tenants of the appellants. However, the respondents stopped paying rent w.e.f. 01.06.1987 to the appellants. Since the rent was not being paid in spite of repeated requests and demands, a legal notice was sent by the appellants to the respondents on 22.07.1992, to which interim reply was sent on 03.08.1992 followed by a detailed reply on 30.08.1992 and thereafter there were exchange of legal notices ensued between the parties.

4) Since despite service of the legal notice sent by the appellants to the respondents demanding arrears of rent, the respondents failed to comply with the demand, the appellants filed Eviction Petition being R.C. No. 165 of 1993 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad against the respondents under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The eviction was sought essentially on the grounds, viz., default in payment of monthly rent from 01.06.1987 till the time of eviction petition and secondly denial of the appellants’ title to the suit premises.

5) Denying the allegations made in the eviction petition, the respondents stated that the sale deed dated 20.07.1904 under which the ancestors of the appellants had purchased the suit premises was a mortgage with a right of re-conveyance whereas the respondents’ predecessors continued to be the owners of the suit premises. According to them, the suit premises was offered only as a security for borrowed amount and subsequently their forefathers discharged the liability of borrowed amount. However, due to some reasons, the respondents’ forefathers could not obtain the re-conveyance of the suit premises in their name, though ownership of suit premises remained with the respondents’ forefathers. It was also averred that for the last fifty years, there was no payment of rent either by them or their forefathers in respect of the suit premises whereas their forefathers paid the property tax etc. as the owners. It was also averred that the appellants fabricated the records to fi