HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NOs.803, 812 and 823 of 2008 DATED: 08.04.2010 C.R.P.No.803 of 2008 Between: P.Chikoti and others .. Petitioners And A.N.Krishna .. Respondent C.R.P.No.812 of 2008 Between: P.Chikoti and others .. Petitioners And A.N.Krishna .. Respondent C.R.P.No.823 of 2008 Between: P.Chikoti and others .. Petitioners And A.N.Krishna .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NOs.803, 812 and 823 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These three revision petitions are directed against the common order dated 17.01.2008 passed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad-appellate authority under the Rent Control Act in R.A.Nos.252, 253 and 254 of 1005. 2. A.N.Krishna, respondent herein filed R.C.Nos.40, 41 and 42 of 2003 before the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad seeking eviction of P.Chiloti, revision petitioner herein on the ground that he committed default in payment of rent and also seeking the premises for bona fide requirement of his son for the purpose of business and residence of his son. 3. The learned rent controller conducted an enquiry jointly in all the Rent Control Cases by recording evidence in R.C.No.40 of 2003, during the course of which, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.46 and Exs.X1 to X24 were marked on behalf of the respondent herein and RW1 was examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the revision petitioner-tenant and allowed all the rent control cases ordering eviction of the revision petitioner and directing him to vacate the premises and handover the vacant possession to the respondent within two months from the date of order. 4. The said findings were challenged by the revision petitioner by filing R.A.Nos.252, 253 and 254 of 2005 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hydrabad, which were heard and disposed of by confirming the orders passed by the rent controller and ultimately while dismissing the appeals, the appellate authority also granted two months time to the revision petitioner to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the premises. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed these revisions before this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the respondent. 7. Out of three premises which are the subject matter of these revisions, two are the mulgies and remaining is the residential premises. According to the respondent, he is the owner of the schedule premises. The tenancy is oral and the tenancy commenced about 24 years prior to filing of the rent control cases before the Rent Controller. The respondent obtained two premises for carrying on kirana and general stores business and the other one for the residential purpose. From the date of filing of the rent control cases, the monthly rent of mulgi in R.C.No.40 of 2003 is Rs.600/-, that of the mulgi in R.C.No.41 of 2003 is Rs.800/- and that of residential premises is Rs.35/- and it was alleged that the revision petitioner committed default in payment of rents from March to December, 2002. It is also submitted that the three premises were bona fidely required by the respondent for his son for the purpose of business as well as residence. 8. The revision petitioner filed a common counter in all the rent control cases alleging that he is not at all the tenant under the respondent and he never paid any rent to the respondent at any point of time and claimed the schedule mentioned property in all the cases as his own property. According to the revision petitioner, the theory of tenancy was only invented for the purpose of filing the tenancy petitions and to grab the property from him. His version is that his wife has been carrying on business in two mulgies by running kirana and general stores and his family has been residing in the other residential portion. 9. In view of the denial by the revision petitioner as to the existence of jural relationship of tenant and landlord between him and the respondent, the learned Courts below proceeded to consider only the question as to whether the denial of title by the revision petitioner is bona fide and the Courts below recorded concurrent finding that the denial of title by the revision petitioner of the respondent is without any bona fides and therefore, ordered eviction of the revision petitioner on the said ground. 10. Now the point for determination in these revision petitions is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad which were confirmed by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (appellate authority)? 11. The plea of the revision petitioner is not specific on the issue as to how, in fact, he became entitled to the schedule mentioned premises in his own right. Admittedly, it is not his case that his title to the schedule mentioned premises is traceable to any document of title. From the specific questions put to PW.1 and PW.3 in the course of cross examination by the counsel for the revision petitioners, the case of the revision petitioners appears to be that his father-in-law was the original tenant of a tiled house and the landlady was one A.Kistamma and also that there was originally a tiled house existed in the schedule mentioned premises which was let out by A.Kistamma to Hanumanth Rao, the father-in-law of the revision petitioner, in the year 1950. Subsequently according to him, a terraced premises was built in the place of tiled house and after the death of Hanumanth Rao, the respondent and his wife continued as tenants in the schedule mentioned premises. PW.1 was also cross examined by making a suggestion that the respondent being in continuous possession of the schedule mentioned premises since 1950, he perfected the title to the property by adverse possession which is not actually set out in the counter filed by the revision petitioner. If the plea of the revision petitioner that he has been continuing as tenant under A.Kistamma in the old tiled house since the year 1950, his case must be that he is the person, who actually constructed the RCC building of which the tenanted premises are part. The revision petitioner did not lead any evidence to show that he constructed the RCC building or that somebody has constructed the same on his behalf. Moreover, Ex.B.1 property tax bill dated 01.09.2002 filed by him which is said to be relating to the schedule mentioned premises stands in the name of A.Kistamma. Therefore, even in the year 2002 the property tax was assessed in the name of A.Kistamma, but not in the name of the revision petitioner. He did not adduce any independent oral evidence or any documentary evidence in proof of his title to the schedule mentioned premises. 12. On the other hand, it is the version of the respondent that A.Kistamma is no other than his paternal grandmother, after the death of his paternal grandmother and his father, he succeeded to the property as a natural heir and became the owner of the property. PW.2, who is a tenant running tailoring shop in another mulgi in the same building had categorically stated in his evidence that the schedule mentioned premises belongs to the respondent and it was leased out to him by the respondent. The revision petitioner in his cross-examination admitted that he knows PW.2, who is a tailor and he has no enmity with him. PW.3 a family friend of PW.1 also supported the version of the respondent. Crucial document is Ex.A.45-rental deed dated 1.2.1978 purported to have been executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent, who was then a minor aged 14 years. It is clearly recited in the rental deed that A.M.Krishna is represented by his father Narsimlu S/o Papaiah. Further in Ex.A.1 sale deed (in Urdu) and a copy of English translation marked as Ex.A.2, the husband’s name of A.Kistamma, who is the owner of the property, is mentioned as Papaiah. These documents clearly establish that the respondent acquired title to the property in his own name by succession as a natural heir and he is claiming his right as heir of A.Kistamma through her son Narsimlu. 13. Ex.A.5-trade licence was issued by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in the name of the revision petitioner and he is running general stores in the premises bearing No.1-3-982 at Kavadiguda. The revision petitioner admitted the same in his evidence. Ex.A.45 rental deed is of the year 1972. However, when the revision petitioner was confronted with the said document during the course of enquiry before the learned rent controller, he stated that it does not contain his signature and it is a fabricated document. Exs.A.3 is the sanctioned plan and Ex.A.4 is the receipt in triplicate in respect of fee for construction of the premises. These two documents reveal that the property belongs to A.Kistamma and the premises were constructed in the year 1977. Ex.A.6 to A.44 are municipal tax receipts and self-assessment from 1.8.1989 to May, 2001. These documents reveal that the respondent has been paying property tax to the schedule mentioned property. 14. It has been contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the appellate authority rendered its finding as to the landlord and tenant relationship basing on assumptions and surmises and that the observations of the appellate authority that under the Act it did not preclude the parties from agitating their title before a competent civil Court clearly indicate that the findings reached at by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are not based on any clinching evidence and they ought not to have held that the respondent is the owner of the property and the revision petitioner is tenant under him and therefore, the findings are liable to be set aside in this revision. I absolutely see no force in the contention urged on behalf of the revision petitioner. 15. Under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Rent Control Act, the tenant is liable for eviction if he denies the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and that such denial or claim was not bona fide. This provision empowers the rent controller to adjudicate upon the question as to whether the denial of the title of the landlord by the tenant is a bona fide. For the purpose of satisfying himself before recording any such finding the rent controller can have recourse to the evidence adduced before him and having recourse to the said evidence, if the rent controller reaches a conclusion that there appears a title in the landlord and the denial of such title by the tenant is without any basis, then the rent controller can pass an order of eviction after recording such a finding. 16. In the instant case, as has already been said that the revision petitioner has no specific case. His case is not clear as to how in fact, he became entitled to the schedule mentioned premises. He stated that he is not a tenant and asserts that his wife is running general stores in both the mulgies and therefore, she is the tenant. He did not even examine his wife or any other person to prove that either the title of the property with him or that in fact, his wife is tenant of the said premises. Except his self-serving testimony which is also self contradictory, there is no other material even in the form of oral evidence to substantiate the version of the revision petitioner. His version consists of virtually inconsistent pleas. At one time he states that A.Kistamma, landlord leased out the premises to his father-in-law in the year 1950 and subsequent to his father-in-law, he and his wife are continuing in possession of the said premises. It is not his case that he or his wife are paying rents to anybody other than the respondent. He also resorted to take the plea of adverse possession by making a suggestion to PW.1 in the cross- examination that by continuing in possession of the property since 1950, he perfected his title to the property by adverse possession. If his case is that the respondent is not the owner of the property, he cannot perfect his title by adverse possession against him. The plea of adverse possession must be specifically pleaded and must be established by adducing cogent evidence. Law does not contemplate asserting adverse title against unknown persons. Thus, the plea of the revision petitioner itself is vague and uncertain. He is not clear as to whether in fact, he is the owner of the property or a tenant or that his wife is a tenant and under whom they are continuing as tenants. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that basing on the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming in this case, both the Courts below rightly arrived at the finding that the respondent is the owner of the property, the revision petitioner being a tenant denied the title of the respondent without any bona fides and rightly held that he is liable for eviction. 17. Though the powers of revision of this Court under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act are wider than the powers of revision conferred under Section 115 of C.P.C, such powers cannot be equated to the powers of an appellate Court and concurrent findings rendered basing on evidence supported by adequate reasoning, cannot be interfered with in the revision, unless they are found to be perverse and even if another view is possible, this Court is not supposed to substitute its opinion in the place of concurrent findings of fact and law arrived at by the Courts below. Thus, absolutely, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the Rent Controller which is confirmed by the appellate authority in the matters referred above and the findings recorded therein are confirmed. These revisions are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed with costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 08.04.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NOs.803, 812 and 823 of 2008 DATED: 08.04.2010