THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2480 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 10.09.2008 in R.A. No.312 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein is the petitioner/landlady, and the respondent herein is the respondent/tenant, before the trial court. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. 3. The landlady filed Rent Control Case No.114 of 2002 before the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Rent Control Act, 1960) for eviction of the tenant stating as follows: The petitioner is the absolute owner and title holder of premises in question viz. bearing door No.2-3-759/1, Amberpet, Hyderabad, admeasuring 260 square yards, having got it by virtue of a gift. The donor confirmed in writing that the respondent is the tenant of the premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/- payable in advance on or before 5th of each calendar month. The respondent is carrying on business under the name and style ‘Saleem Bottle & Scrap Merchants’, and he paid rent up to July, 2001 and thereafter, willfully withheld the rents from August, 2001 till March, 2002, and so he is liable for eviction. When the respondent, in collusion with some others, hatched up a plan to alienate the premises and was trying to create forged document, the petitioner published a notice on 6.3.2002 in Siasath daily, and thereafter got issued a notice to the respondent to vacate the premises in question and hand over vacant possession, as he willfully withheld the rent. As the respondent did not vacate the premises, the present case is filed. 4. The respondent/tenant filed counter stating as follows: The respondent obtained the premises in question on rent fro Sri Gulam Dastagir Ahmed in the year 1980 by executing a rental deed in his favour. The said Dasgagir Ahmed entered into an agreement of sale dated 26.2.2002 in respect of the premises in question in favour of the respondent and collected amount from him towards advance and earnest money. He issued receipts to the respondent at the time of agreement of sale and subsequent to it also. At no point of time, the respondent paid rent to the petitioner and there is no jural relationship of landlady and tenant between them. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Rent Control Case. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were got marked, on behalf of the petitioner, and R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R54 were got marked, on behalf of the respondent. 6. The trial court, vide its order dated 26.10.2004, allowed the Rent Control Case directing the respondent/tenant to vacate the premises in question. On appeal by the tenant, the appellate court, vide the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the trial court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the petitioner/landlady. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the owner of the premises in question by virtue of oral gift deed whereunder the property in question was bequeathed to the petitioner by her brother and the same was confirmed by Ex.P1-confirmation letter, and therefore, by virtue of Ex.P1-letter, she became owner of the premises; that the tenant committed default in payment of rent for the period from August, 2001 to March, 2002 i.e. for a period of eight months.; that, after receipt of Ex.P1-confirmation letter, the petitioner informed the respondent about the attornment of the tenancy, but, insptie of the same, the respondent denied the title of the petitioner willfully, and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order of the appellate court. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the transfer of title of the premises in question has not been communicated to the respondent and so he is not liable to pay rents to the petitioner, and considering these aspects, the appellate court rightly allowed the appeal and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 9. The points that arise for consideration in this revision petition are: (i) whether there is jural relationship of landlady and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent ? (ii) whether the tenant denied title of the landlady with mala fide intention ? and (iii) whether the respondent committed default in payment of rents from August, 2001 to March, 2002 ? 10. POINTS: It is the case of the petitioner/landlady that her brother bequeathed the property in question in her favour by way of oral gift deed. The date of the oral gift is not mentioned either in the petition or in Ex.P1- confirmation letter. If really, the oral gift followed by Ex.P1- confirmation letter is true and correct and the same must have been communicated to the respondent/tenant. After receipt of the communication, the tenant is bound to accept the same and he is not supposed to deny the oral gift followed by the confirmation letter. According to the landlady, she sent Ex.P4-attornment letter to the respondent under certificate of posting. The trial court came to the conclusion that since the address mentioned on the cover is correct, the presumption under law can be drawn as it was served on the addressee. But, that finding is perverse because in case of sending the envelope under certificate of posting, no such presumption can be drawn, and only in case of a registered letter, such presumption can be drawn under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when it is properly addressed and registered. Of course, it is a rebuttable presumption where the addressee can show in the court that inspite of sending the letter by registered post, that has not been served on him. Such contingency does not arise in this case, as, admittedly, in this case, the landlady sent Ex.P4-attornment letter through certificate of posting. There is no proof to show that it was received by the tenant. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that there was proper service of Ex.P4- attornment letter on the tenant. 11. Even when the petitioner sent a telegram Ex.P12, there is no mention about the oral gift alleged to have been made by her brother followed by Ex.P1-confirmation letter. It is only stated in the telegram that the respondent is liable to pay the rents. Except the said fact, there is no mention about the oral gift or the contents of Ex.P1. The respondent gave a reply Ex.P6 to the telegram. Therefore, the factum of change of ownership has not been communicated to the respondent in the mode prescribed under law. Because the respondent had taken the premises in question from the original owner Gulam Dastagir Ahmed on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-, unless the claim of the petitioner is substantiated with any evidence, the respondent is entitled to dispute about her ownership. Admittedly, the original owner Gulam Dastagir Ahmed died on 26.02.2002. Though there is a dispute with regard to payment of rents, at the same time, the respondent is not obliged to pay rents to the petitioner in the absence of any evidence to show that the bequeathing of the premises in question was properly communicated to the petitioner by her brother followed by Ex.P1-confirmation letter. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent is with a mala fide intention. Accordingly, the appellate court rightly held that denial of the title by the respondent is a bona fide one. 12. With regard to the default committed by the respondent, though it is in the evidence that the respondent committed default in payment of rent from August, 2001 to March, 2002, the respondent filed certain receipts, which contain thumb impressions and also signature of the original owner. No doubt, some of the documents said to have been produced by the respondent containing either thumb impression or signature of the original owner even after his death, but, that cannot be a ground to order eviction of the respondent from the premises in question, for the simple reason that the petitioner failed to establish that she has got right, title and interest in respect of the premises in question beyond preponderance of probability. So long as the factum of petitioner acquiring title to the premises in question is not communicated to the respondent, the question of the latter paying rents to the petitioner does not arise. In these circumstances, even if the respondent committed any default in payment of rents to the original owner, that cannot be enured to the benefit of the petitioner, who failed to establish that she is entitled to succeed to the premises in question by virtue of the oral gift deed. Considering these aspects in right perspective, the appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court, and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 13. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 3.3.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2480 of 2009 3.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2480 of 2009 3.3.2011 Between: Faizunnisa Begum alias Umm-Ul-Hsanath …Petitioner And Mohd. Siddiqi alias Mohd. Saleem …Respondent