1. The CRP is filed, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 31.10.2018 passed in RCA No 15 of 2014 by the Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Principal Senior Civil Judge Nellore. The petitioner is directed to vacate the petition schedule property within 3 months from the date of the order and deliver possession to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents ought to establish the landlord-tenant relationship and that without establishing the landlord tenant relationship, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority would have to be set aside. It is submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal had erroneously determined that the petitioner and the respondent established landlord- tenant relationship. It is submitted that such a finding is without any material or record and the said finding is purely on the basis of the surmises and assumptions.

3. It is submitted that the respondent could not submit any document before the appellate authority or the Rent Controller Court for establishing the claim of Landlord tenant relationship. It is also submitted that the respondent has filed a suit for declaration of title and pending consideration of the said suit, the Rent Control Appellate Authority could not have determined the title of the respondent and directed the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession to the respondent.

4. It is also submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has gone beyond its scope and preview and determined the title in favour of the respondent which could not have been done in the normal course of jurisprudence. It is submitted that the finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority determining title is against the well settled Principles of law.

5. It is submitted that the Rent Controller cum Principal Junior Civil Judge while dismissing RCC.No.20 of 2011 had rightly held that there was no evidence to establish the landlord – tenant relationship between the parties. As such the petition filed under the Rent Control Act was found not maintainable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the Life Insurance Corporation of India v. M/s. India Automobiles and Co. and others(AIR 1991 SC 884). It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Rent Controller Court or Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to determine title.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the evidence of RW2 and PW3 before the Rent Controller Court would amply clarify the execution of a registered document by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner had admitted in the cross-examination that the petitioner has appeared before the Sub Registrar Office and executed the sale deed. It is submitted that after having executed the sale deed the petitioner is disputing the title and claims that she herself does not have title for execution of the sale deed and as such the respondent has filed suit for declaration. It is submitted that pendency of the suit for declaration cannot be a ground for the petitioner to deny paying rents for the property under the occupation of the petitioner.

8. It is also submitted that the petitioner was paying rents for a certain period of time. However, the petitioner stopped paying rents and started questioning the title of the respondent. At that point of time, the respondent filed a suit for declaration. It is submitted that PW3 is a relative of the petitioner. However, the evidence of PW3 would categorically show that PW3 witnessed payment of rent by the petitioner to the respondent and the respondent receiving rents from the petitioner. The evidence of PW3 would amply clarify the ambiguity which is purposefully raised by the petitioner on the existing landlord - tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that, the Order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is only after considering the evidence before the trial Court. It was found that the trial Court had erred in not considering the evidence of the witnesses in totality. It is also submitted that, the Appellate Authority has passed a well-reasoned order which does not deserve any interference. It is submitted that the petitioner continues to be in occupation of the property of the respondent without paying any rents and prays for dismissing the CRP.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

11. The short point for determination is whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction and passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession to the respondent within a period of 3 months.

12. As seen from the order passed by the Rent Controller Appellate Authority, the authority has not determined title in favour of the respondent as claimed by the petitioner. The authority has found fault with the stand of the petitioner, who after having executed a registered document in favour of the respondent has raised the issue of title. The Rent Controller Appellate Authority has categorically held that the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is established. This finding is after considering the evidence on record, it is also evident from the impugned order that there is no discussion with regard to conferring of title in favour of the respondent as claimed by the petitioner.

13. This Court, after perusing the evidence on record, is of the considered view that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has passed a well- reasoned order which does not deserve any interference. There is no determination of title as claimed by the petitioner by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner would be of no relevance as there is no determination of title by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

14. This Court is of the concerned view that no grounds are raised for interference in the well-considered and well-reasoned order passed by the Rent Controller Appellate Authority.

15. Accordingly CRP is dismissed, making it clear to the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession to the subject property to the respondents within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs..

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.