IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Tuesday, August 30, 2011. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar C.R.P.No. 1104 of 2011 Between: S.Sateesh …Petitioner and Shasank Kumar ..Respondent The Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Chandra Kumar C.R.P.No. 1104 of 2011 O r d e r: As seen from the docket proceedings, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 28-07-2011; 11-08-2011 and 25-08-2011 when CRP.MP.No.2212 of 2011 in CRP.MP.No. 1573 of 2011 in C.R.P.No. 1104 of 2011 was posted for hearing. In the above circumstances on 27.8.2011 this court directed to post the matter today under the caption “for dismissal”. Accordingly, the revision petition is posted under the caption “for dismissal” today. Though the Revision Petition is posted today under the caption “for dismissal” there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 2. In this revision petition, the petitioner is the tenant and the sole respondent is the landlord. The respondent-landlord is claiming his title through registered Will dated:16—11—1993 said to have been executed by one Bhagirathi Bai wife of late Bhavani Pershad, the original owner of the premises in question. The respondent herein filed I.A.No. 74 of 2006 before the learned IV Additional Rent Controller-cum-XVI Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad seeking a direction to the petitioner herein to pay arrears of rent from November, 1998 to February, 2006 at the rate of Rs.150-00 per month and continue to deposit the rents till the disposal of the eviction petition. 4. The respondent initially contended that he had taken the premises on rent from Smt. Kundana Bai and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and himself. However, the learned Rent Controller having relied on the reply notice dated: 13-01-2005 sent by the petitioner, himself, wherein he admitted that Kundan Bai and Bhagirathi Bai are one and the same, directed the petitioner to pay all the arrears of rent within fifteen days from the date of the order in the said Interlocutory petition. Challenging the orders passed in I.A.No. 74 of 2006 in R.C.No. 120 of 2006 dated: 8.7.2009, the petitioner herein filed R.A.No. 72 of 2009. The appellate authority having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the appeal by its order dated:28.06.2010 and challenging the said order, the present revision is filed. 5. The only contention raised in the grounds of revision is that there is no jural relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the respondent. 6. The only point that rises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable. 7. I have gone through the entire material. The learned Rent Controller has given cogent reasons for allowing the interlocutory application – I.A 74 of 2006 by referring to the reply notice dated: 13.01.2005 sent by the petitioner (the respondent herein), himself, wherein he has admitted that Kundan Bai and Bhagirathi Bai are one and the same. Thus, in view of the categorical findings of the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned and there are no merits in the revision. 8. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. In the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs. ________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. August 30, 2011. *BVS