THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4789 of 2010 Dated:- 18th October, 2011 Between N.Ramachandraiah …Petitioner AND P.V.Narsinga Rao and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4789 of 2010 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the judgment dated 02.09.2010 passed in R.A.No.88 of 2009 by the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (‘the appellate authority’, for brevity), whereby and whereunder, the order dated 26.08.2009 passed in R.C.No.353 of 2007 by the 13th Junior Civil Judge – cum – I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, (‘the Rent Controller’, for brevity) has been confirmed. 2. Respondents 1 to 6 herein, claiming to the absolute owners of the land admeasuring 154.75 square yards with residential premises bearing municipal number 3-5-353, Vittalwadi, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad (‘the schedule property’, for brevity), filed R.C.No.353 of 2007 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the petitioner herein. Their brief case is as follows:- 3. One Smt. K.Manibai was the original owner of the schedule property. She sold 22.50 square yards of land under a registered sale deed dated 01.12.1980 to Late Smt. P.N.Sumathi, the wife of the first respondent herein and the mother of respondents 2 to 6 herein. K.Manibai also sold 11 square yards of land to one K.Pandu. The petitioner herein was inducted as a tenant in the remaining 125 square yards by K.Manibai, the original owner. Subsequently, K.Manibai executed a Will and Testament dated 27.05.1977 in favour of her son – K.Shyam Sunder bequeathing her property. K.Manibai died on 25.06.1981. 4. The further case of the respondents herein is that the petitioner herein paid rent to K.Shyam Sunder from August 1981 to December, 1981 for which, K.Shyam Sunder passed receipts acknowledging the rents. K.Shyam Sunder sold an extent of 61 square yards out of his 125 square yards of land to one P.N.Sumathi, wife of the first respondent herein and attorned the tenancy rights under registered sale deed dated 20.12.1981 and subsequently sold the remaining entire portion of 140.50 square yards i.e., excluding the property sold by her mother K.Manibai to said K.Pandu. 5. Then, P.N.Sumathi got issued legal notice to the petitioner herein on 05.01.1982 asking him to vacate the schedule premises for which, the petitioner herein gave a reply on 28.01.1982 alleging that the sisters of K.Shyam Sunder, who were having right over the schedule property, agreed to sell their share to him and executed a agreement of sale on 11.09.1981 for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- and that he had paid part of sale consideration, i.e., Rs.6,000/- and thus denied the title of P.N.Sumathi. Then, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.456 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance of agreement of sale and also sought cancellation of sale deeds dated 20.10.1981 and 11.06.1982 executed in favour of P.N.Sumathi. After the death of P.N.Sumathi, her L.R.s have been brought on record. The suit was partly decreed on 03.08.1983. Later, K.Shyam Sunder also died. Then the respondents herein filed C.C.C.A.No.103 of 1993 before this Court and the said appeal was allowed on 19.06.2007 and this Court observed that the agreement of sale put forward by the petitioner herein is not genuine. Thus, the respondents herein, alleging that the petitioner’s denial of title is not bonafide and that he had also committed willful default in payment of rents and also acts of waste in dismantling part of the building, filed the above referred R.C., seeking his eviction from the schedule premises. 6. A detailed counter was filed denying the title of the respondents and also the Will and the Testament executed by K.Manibai in favour of her son K.Shyam Sunder. The petitioner also claimed his title and right under the agreement of sale dated 11.09.1981 said to have been executed by the sisters of K.Shyam Sunder. 7. On behalf of the respondents herein, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.48 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein, he himself was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. 8. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, disbelieved the version of the petitioner and allowed the R.C. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal and the appellate authority, on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Challenging the same, this revision is filed. 9. Heard Sri K.Someshwar Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner herein and Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents herein. 10. I have gone through the judgments of both the Courts below. There is no need to discuss the issues raised before the Rent Controller or the appellate authority once again. It is not in dispute that the suit filed by the petitioner herein in O.S.No.456 of 1983 on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was partly allowed. Challenging the same an appeal in C.C.C.A.No.103 of 1993 was preferred before this Court and this Court, by its judgment dated 01.06.2007, allowed the appeal and thus, the suit filed by the petitioner herein stood dismissed. Therefore, whatever title dispute was there between the parties, that has been settled by the judgment of this Court in C.C.C.A.No.103 of 1993. Moreover, this Court gave a categorical finding that the agreement of sale put forward by the petitioner was not genuine. Now it is argued that the legal heirs of P.N.Sumathi have been shown as legal heirs of K.Shyam Sunder in the cause-title of the appeal in C.C.C.A.No.103 of 1993. There is no need to verify as to under what circumstances the L.R.s of P.N.Sumathi were brought on record, since judgment of this Court has become final. Now it is clear that the petitioner’s denial of title cannot be said to be genuine. Admittedly, for the disputed period, no rents have been paid. 11. Therefore, I am of the view that the findings of the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority cannot be said to be perverse and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 12. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The petitioner herein is directed to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondents herein. However, the petitioner is granted time till 30th November, 2011 to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondents herein, subject to the payment of rents and the arrears of rents, if any. _________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 18th October, 2011 Bvv