THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.914 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the decree and judgment dated 07.07.2005 in A.S.No.30 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2004 in O.S.No.175 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala was set-aside while allowing the A.S. and remanding the O.S. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as the appellant and the respondent as arrayed in this C.M.A. 3. The appellant and the respondent are wife and husband. The case of the appellant is that she is the owner of the suit schedule property situated at Perala of Chirala Municipality. After marital relations strained, on intervention of elders, the appellant let out the suit schedule property in favour of respondent on terms and conditions vide lease agreement dated 27.12.2001. The lease commenced from 01.01.2002 and expired by 31.11.2002. The lease amount to be paid is Rs.1500/- per month till March,2002 and thereafter Rs.2,000/- per month. The respondent paid agreed lease amount till July,2002 and thereafter committed default. In spite repeated requests, the respondent failed to pay the arrears and as such the appellant got issued a notice to the respondent to pay the arrears and to vacate the schedule property. Then, the appellant filed P.L.C.No.119 of 2002 before the Legal Services Authority, Chirala wherein the respondent paid Rs.3,000/- towards arrears and requested time to pay the balance amount, but refused to sign the Award. Therefore, she filed the suit for possession of the plaint schedule property after duly evicting the respondent from it and to put her in possession of the same and for arrears of rent of Rs.7,000/- for the months of July,2002 to November,2002, and Rs.2,500/- for illegal use and occupation of the plaint schedule property by the respondent from December,2002 to May,2003. 4. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that she developed hatred against him and living separately without reasonable cause. He purchased the suit schedule property by paying sale consideration in the name of the appellant, when they were leading happy married life. The appellant is not having any source of income to claim that she purchased the suit schedule property. She has no manner of right over the suit schedule property. From the date of purchase i.e. 12.12.1989, the respondent is running a shop, telephone booth, cool drinks business in the suit schedule property. The appellant took away the sale deed of the suit schedule property stealthily so as to defeat his interest in it. The respondent stated that initially he accepted to settle the matter before the legal authority due to undue influence of relatives, but after realizing the misleading act of the appellant, he refused to sign on the award. He stated that the suit schedule property does not fetch the rent as alleged by the appellant. 5. Basing on the respective pleadings, the trial court framed the issues. During the course of trial, appellant and two others were examined as PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. The respondent and four others were examined as DWs 1 to 5 and no documents were marked. 6. The trial curt after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record by the parties and also the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that there is a jural relationship between the appellant and the respondent as landlady and tenant and allowed the suit directing the respondent to vacate the suit schedule property and put the appellant in possession of the same within 6 months and that the appellant is entitled for arrears of rent of Rs.7,000/- from July,2002 to November,2002 and for Rs.15,000/- for illegal use and occupation of the suit schedule property by the respondent from December,2002 to May,2003. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 175 of 2003, the respondent filed A.S. No.30 of 2004 and the same was allowed setting aside the decree and judgement in the said O.S. and remanded the suit directing the trial court to readmit the suit to its original number and shall provide opportunity to adduce relevant evidence on sale deed dated 12.12.1989 and dispose of the suit afresh. Challenging the decree and judgement in the said A.S., the present C.M.A. has been filed by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate court ought to have seen that the suit was filed for eviction of the respondent basing on lease agreement executed by him in favour of the appellant; that the respondent cannot set-up a title against his landlady in a suit for eviction; that the lower appellate court has failed to consider that the respondent has not shown the suit schedule property as his own in his insolvency petition: that the lower appellate court failed to see that certified copy of the sale deed produced by the respondent establishes the ownership of the appellant and that the lower appellate court has committed error in remanding the suit for fresh disposal. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lower appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence brought on record before the trial court and particularly in view of filing of the application by the respondent before the lower appellate court to receive the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.12.1989 as additional evidence, remanded the suit for fresh disposal by setting aside the judgment and decree in the O.S. As such, the impugned order does not warrant interference from this court. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 10. The appellant and the respondent are wife and husband. The marital relations between them are strained. The appellant is living separately. The contention of the appellant is that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and let out the same to the respondent initially on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/-. The contention of the respondent is that he signed the lease deed under threat; that the appellant is living separately without any reasonable cause; that she has no source of income to purchase the suit schedule property and that from the date of purchase he is doing business in the suit schedule property. 11. It is the case of the appellant that she purchased the suit schedule property after her marriage with the respondent. The appellant is living separately by leaving major children and the respondent. The appellant has not produced the sale deed before the trial court. Further, DW.4 who is mother of the appellant, deposed that the suit schedule property belongs to the respondent. The respondent has filed an application before the lower appellate court to receive the certified copy of the sale deed as additional evidence to establish that he purchased the suit schedule property. In view of these circumstances, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. This court is of the considered view that the first appellate court has not committed any error in remanding the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. 12. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J -03-2010 Stp