1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 assailing the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad in R.C.A. No.23 of 2019.

2. Petitioner is the petitioner, respondent No.1 (when alive) is the respondent in RCC No.358 of 2013.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court has failed to consider that the jural relationship and denial of title is absolutely on different propositions, there can be an absolute relationship between the parties to invoke the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court to pass an order of eviction against the tenant. In case where there is a dispute of jural relationship between the parties, the Court has to consider and weigh the evidence on record before passing an order against the tenant. Appellate Court observed in Para No.21 of the order that the translator was not examined. In fact, the document was filed along with the translation and the respondent No.1 never disputed that the translation appended to Ex.P1 is incorrect by filing another translation discrediting the translation appended to Ex.P1. Appellate Court observed in the order that RW.1 has stated that PW.1 has taken a mortgage deed instead of sale deed. Appellate Court failed to consider that there is no dispute so far as execution of Ex.P1 is concerned. If really it was an alleged mortgage deed, the parties would not have kept quiet for more than 40 years without initiating legal proceedings in respect of Ex.P1.

               3.2. Appellate Court failed to consider that there is a positive evidence on record that the tenant paid the rents and subsequently failed to pay the same. Appellate Court observed that why PW.1 is silent from 1971 to 1985. Appellate Court failed to consider that in a rent control matter, it is irrelevant for consideration as to who was in possession of the property. When the title has been passed to a purchaser from the lawful owner, it is not relevant for consideration as to who was occupying the premises for the period. Appellate Court failed to consider that Ex.P3 is about 25 years old filed along with the petition. Under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act, a lease deed need not be attested as required under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, as such the appellate Court cannot draw any inference so far as non-attestation of the document is concerned. PW.1 has categorically stated that the said document is executed. PW.2 stated that the petitioner is the owner of the property. As on the date of evidence of RW.1, he was aged about 36 years, the appellate Court failed to consider that RW.1 was not even born on the date of execution of Ex.P1, his evidence has no evidentiary value so far as the dispute is concerned. The statement of CW.1 that the property belongs to Waqf Board is no way concerned. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Lakhi Baruah and Ors. Vs. Padma Kanta Kalita and Ors. (MANU/SC/0334/1996) (2) Iqbal Basith and Ors. Vs. N.Subbalakshmi and Ors. (MANU/SC/0937/2020) (3) Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRs. Vs. V.Kumar Vamanrao and Ors. (MANU/SC/0159/2024) (4) Modugu Veeraiah Vs. Medarametla Vanajakshi (MANU/TL/1550/2024) (5) Gaddam Bhiksham and Ors. Vs. Garikamukku Sarveswara Rao and Ors. (MANU/AP/0115/2025) and prayed to allow the petition.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 8 submits that the learned appellate Court has rightly evaluated the evidence of the parties and rightly set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller. Petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the order of the appellate Court and there are no merits in the petition, prayed to dismiss the Petition.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be herein after referred to as petitioner and respondents.

6. Petitioner counsel has filed written arguments in support of his contention.

7. Heard counsels on record, perused the material.

8. Now the points for consideration are:

               1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case that the respondent No.1 has committed default in payment of rent from March 2013 to September 2013?

               2. Whether the petitioner is in requirement of the petition schedule property for his bona fide requirement?

               3. Whether there is any jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 as landlord and tenant in view of the pleading of the respondent No.1?

               4. Whether the order passed by the appellate Court suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court?

9. Petitioner has filed petition under Section 10(2)(1)(v) and 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 against the respondent No.1 for eviction from petition schedule property bearing No.17-4-160 comprising of one Mulgi, tin shed and courtyard admeasuring 63 Sq.yrds situated at Yakutpura, Hyderabad.

10. Respondent No.1 has filed counter on 12.06.2014 and denied that the petitioner has let out the petition schedule property to him by executing a lease deed dated 01.07.1985 on a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. He admitted that he has received the legal notice got issued by the petitioner, when questioned the petitioner about the notice he admitted his guilt, promised and assured that he would cancel the Sale Deed which is obtained fraudulently from his mother, by considering such assurance, respondent No.1 did not give any reply to the notice got issued by the petitioner. Respondent No.1 is continuing his possession over the petition schedule property as successor of his mother who was the owner of the petition schedule property. There is serious dispute of title and the petition has no legs to stand for the reason that the property tax is not in the name of the petitioner with that of the electricity connection. Mother of the respondent No.1 has purchased the petition schedule property from Shaik Mahaboob under registered Sale Deed dated 09.06.1996. Taking advantage of her illiteracy. Petitioner has fabricated the document in his favour.

11. Petitioner is examined as PW.1, examined PW.2- Mohammed Ibrahim and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. Respondent No.1 failed to enter into the witness box. His son by name B.Rakesh is examined as RW.1, examined RW.2-N.Pramila, RW.3- Mohd Qamar, RW.4- Gouti Bikshapathy and got marked Exs.R1 to R8.

12. The learned Rent Controller after considering the evidence adduced by the parties has ordered eviction of the respondent No.1 vide order dated 18.12.2018.

13. Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2018 in R.C.No.358 of 2013 filed appeal vide the R.C.A.No.23 of 2019 before The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Courts at Hyderabad. It is to be noted here that during pendency of the R.C.A., respondent No.1 died and his LRs were brought on record as respondent Nos.2 to 8. The learned appellate Court vide order dated 10.02.2020 has allowed the R.C.A. filed by respondent No.1 and set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 18.12.2018.

14. Petitioner aggrieved by the order in R.C.A. No.23 of 2019, dated 10.02.2020 filed CRP No.1053 of 2020 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 15.03.2022 has set aside the order passed by the appellate Court in R.C.A.No.23 of 2019 dated 10.02.2020 and remanded the matter back with a direction to examine the insufficiency of stamp duty on Ex.P3 and to take recourse as contemplated under Indian Stamp Act.

15. After the matter is remanded by this Court, petitioner has filed IA.No.431 of 2022 in R.C.A.No.23 of 2019 under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act to send Ex.P3-lease deed dated 01.07.1985 to District Registrar for validation. The said application was allowed by the appellate Court vide order dated 24.06.2022.

16. In the appellate Court, M.Ravinder Rao, District Registrar, Hyderabad (South) is examined as CW.1 and got marked Exs.C1 to C5.

17. The learned appellate Court vide order dated 21.11.2022 has allowed R.C.A. No.23 of 2019 and set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.No.358 of 2013 dated 18.12.2018.

18.1. Petitioner has got issued quit notice dated 07.10.2013 to the respondent No.1 before filing RCC, the same is served on 08.10.2013, but copy of the same is not filed.

               18.2. In V.Dhanapal Chettiar Vs. Yesodai Ammal (1979 (4) SCC 214 (7 Judge Bench)), the Supreme Court held that a notice to quit under Section 106 of the T.P. Act is not a necessary prerequisite for an eviction petition - such notice is a mere surplusage.

POINT NOs.1-4:

19. Ex.P1 is the original registered Sale Deed dated 09.06.1971 along with rough sketch plan. Ex.P2 is the true translation of Ex.P1. The schedule of the property is House bearing Municipal No.17-4-160 situated at Yakutpura, Hyderabad, total land admeasuring 63 Sq.yrds which is equivalent to 52 Sq.mtrs with specific boundaries.

20. Petitioner has amended his petition as there was a typographical mistake in the extent of the schedule property mentioned in the original petition.

21. Ex.P3 is the original lease deed dated 01.07.1985 executed in between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is stated in the lease deed that the tenant – respondent No.1 has agreed to pay the landlord the monthly rent of Rs.50/- on or before 10th of the every succeeding month and the lease is for a period of three months to be commenced from 1st July, 1985, the leased premises is 17-4- 160 which is the petition schedule property. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch plan.

22. On perusal of the appendix and the order dated 18.12.2018 in R.C.No.358 of 2013, Ex.P5-postal track report No. RN 392328827 IN and Ex.P6-certified copy of impounded absolute agreement of sale dated 04.06.2012 were deleted by the Rent Controller as per the orders in IA.No.46 of 2019 dated 12.06.2019.

23. The evidence of PW.1 is the same with that of the petition averments. In his cross-examination he stated that the respondent No.1 is his tenant since 1985 and he purchased the petition schedule property from Sathemma in the year 1972 and the respondent No.1 is the son of Sathemma. His son by name Sridharraju got translated Ex.P1 at City Civil Court area and he do not remember who are the attestors to Ex.P3 – lease deed and one Fakeer Mohammed has drafted Ex.P1. He do not remember whether Sathemma has put her thumb impression or signature at the registration office and he has no proof to show that he received rents from the respondent No.1 in respect of petition schedule property. Respondent No.1 has paid rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month for the month of August and September, 2012. He denied the suggestion that respondent No.1 and his family members never recognised him as the landlord and he obtained the Sale Deed from Sathemma by misrepresenting her that it is a mortgage deed. He did not pay the property tax from the date of purchase after filing the R.C. Electricity connection and water connection are not standing in his name. His signature does not find place in Ex.P3 and it only contains the signature of respondent No.1.

24. PW.2 - Mohammed Ibrahim Qureshi deposed that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of premises bearing No. 17-4-160. In his cross-examination he stated that he do not know who was in occupation of the petition schedule Mulgi prior to the respondent No.1. The contents of the chief affidavit are not read over and explained to him, for the past 3 to 4 years he has not seen the respondent No.1.

25. R.C.C. came to be filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1. on 11.12.2013. Respondent No.1 has not entered into the witness box to give his evidence. RW.1- B.Rakesh has filed IA.No.149 of 2016 under Order 32 Rule 4 of CPC seeking leave of the Rent Controller to give evidence on behalf of his father as his next friend. The said application came to be allowed by the Rent Controller on 17.01.2017.

26. Order 32 of CPC speaks of suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind. Rule 4 speaks that who may act as next friend of minor or be appointed guardian for the suit.

27. The evidence of RW.1 is the same with that of the counter filed by the respondent No.1. As per the affidavit, grandmother of RW.1 died on 22.07.2012. In his cross-examination he stated that R.C.C. is not filed against him showing as a respondent and his paternal grandmother died in the year 2012. He do not know about Exs.P1 and P2 documents and he cannot file any electricity bill, property tax bill, water bill to show that petition schedule Mulgi is in the name of his paternal grandmother. He denied the suggestion that his father - respondent No.1 has paid rent of Rs.50/- to the petitioner in the year 1985. He has not filed any documents to show that they are the owners of the petition schedule property.

28. RW.2 – N.Pramila evidence is that her sister's mother-in-law has purchased the petition schedule property (Sathemma). In her cross-examination she stated that the petitioner is her brother-inlaw.

29. RW.3 - Mohd Qamar deposed that Sathemma has informed him that she obtained money from the petitioner by pledging her articles and title deeds of her property and also informed that she has repaid the above said amount to the petitioner and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. In his cross-examination he stated that he do not know the contents of his chief affidavit. There is no jural relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and respondent No.1.

30. RW.4 – G.Bikshapathy deposed that petitioner never claimed ownership over the petition schedule property and Sathemma never resided as tenant in the petition schedule property and after her death, respondent No.1 never paid any amount to the petitioner towards rent, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant.

31. Respondent No.1 has not entered into the witness box to put forth his contention that he is not the tenant of the petition schedule property. Ex.P3 is dated 01.07.1985 and the age of the respondent is shown in the affidavit as 36 years, he has no personal knowledge about the facts of the case. Sathemma died on 22.07.2012 and Ex.P1 - registered Sale Deed came to be executed by Sathemma in favour of the petitioner on 09.06.1971. Ex.P1 is more than 30 years old which is a registered document, presumption of genuineness can be drawn under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act.

32. It is not the case of respondent No.1 in the counter that Ex.P2 – True translation of Ex.P1 is incorrect. The learned appellate Court erroneously observed in the order that the petitioner has not examined the translator of Ex.P1.

33. Ex.P3 – lease deed dated 01.07.1985 contains the signature of the respondent No.1.

34. In Lakhi Baruah1, the Supreme Court observed that presumption under Section 90 is not available on the certified copy of a document.

35. In Iqbal Basith2, the Supreme Court observed that the trial court and the High Court venture to decide the title of the appellants in permanent injunction suit.

36. Srinivas Ragavendrarao Desai3 facts are in respect of a suit for partition.

37. Modugu Veeraiah4 which deals with recovery of money and without pleadings any amount of evidence to establish a contention is futile exercise.

38. In Gaddam Bhiksham5, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati was dealing with Second Appeal in respect of the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and consequential relief of perpetual injunction and the first Court has dismissed the suit, appellate Court has set aside the trial Court order and the defendants have approached the High Court wherein the Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the first appellate Court.

39. The decisions cited by the petitioner’s counsel are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. The ratio laid down in the above said decisions are not applicable to the case on hand.

40. As stated supra, presumption is drawn against Ex.P1 document i.e., 30 years old under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. Respondent No.1 has not entered into the witness box to buttress Ex.P3 – Lease Deed dated 01.07.1985. Though petitioner is crossexamined, nothing incriminating is elicited from his evidence except putting suggestions. The evidence of the petitioner coupled with the evidence of PW.2 with that of Exs.P1 to P3 goes to show that petitioner is the owner of the petition schedule property, he let out the premises to respondent No.1 under Ex.P3 and respondent No.1 has committed default of rent. Petitioner has also proved that he requires the petition schedule property for his bonafide requirement and there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant.

41. The evidence of RW's.1 to 4 is not helpful to the case of the respondent in any manner and Exs.R1 to R4 are the photographs and Ex.R5 is the bunch of receipts (4 in number) which are not related to the case.

42. The evidence of CW.1 goes to show that Ex.P3 does not require any stamp duty and penalty. The other portion of the evidence of CW.1 is not material to the case on hand in view of the fact that Ex.P3 does not require any stamp duty and penalty. Appellate Court has travelled beyond the scope of the Appeal and went on to discuss that the petition schedule property is a Waqf property. The point in the case is with regard to tenant and landlord dispute, which has to be decided basing on the evidence adduced by the parties.

43. The observations of the learned appellate Court are perverse and they are liable to be set aside in view of the reasons above.

44. In the result, CRP is allowed and the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad in R.C.A. No.23 of 2019 dated 21.11.2022 is set aside and the order passed by the learned I Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad in R.C.No.358 of 2013 dated 18.12.2018 is restored. Respondent Nos.2 to 8 are hereby directed to vacate the petition schedule property within three months from the date of this order, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to evict the respondent Nos.2 to 8 as per law.

Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.