IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4485 OF 2005 BETWEEN M. Ganesh. …PETITIONER AND T. Renu Kumar. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner: MR. B. RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: - ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the landlord/petitioner, who had filed eviction case being R.C.No.298 of 1999 before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the respondent seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default allegedly committed by the respondent for six months @ Rs.600/- per month. 2. The respondent herein filed a counter before the lower Court denying ownership of the petitioner as well as the landlord and tenant relationship and alleged that he is not liable to pay any rent, as he is not a tenant. He further pleaded that his mother Smt. T. Neelamma had purchased the petition schedule house in 1960 and after the death of his mother, he is continuing in possession as an absolute owner. Petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P4 whereas the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and did not mark any document. 3. The learned Rent Controller framed two points for consideration viz. (i) Whether the denial of the title of the petitioner of the petition premises by the respondent alleged in the counter affidavit is malafide or not? (ii) Whether the respondent is a defaulter for the period as stated in the petition or not? 4. On the basis of the specific admission of R.W.1 in his cross- examination that his parents had mortgaged the petition schedule house in favour of one Smt. Usha Jaiswal and that he attested the sale deed executed by the said Smt. Usha Jaiswal in favour of P.W.1 under Ex.P2 – sale deed, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the petition schedule premises and the denial of the title by the respondent is clearly malafide and that itself is a ground for eviction. So far as default is concerned, in view of the admitted case of the tenant that he did not pay rent that point was also answered in favour of the petitioner. 5. On appeal being, R.A.No.427 of 2001, by the tenant, the lower appellate, however, has reversed the said order of the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish by documents the relationship of landlord and tenant and consequently, set aside the eviction order. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice of this revision petition though sent to the respondent, he has chosen to leave it unclaimed and as such, nobody is appearing for him. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the lower appellate Court has committed error in not appreciating the specific admission of the respondent, which is relied by trial Court and no reasons are given by the lower appellate Court with respect to both the points framed by the learned Rent Controller and instead it has gone by a general point for consideration as to whether the order of the learned Rent Controller is liable to be set aside. 8. I have perused the judgments of the learned Rent Controller as well as the lower appellate Court. In a dispute of this nature before the learned Rent Controller, the absolute proof of title on the part of the landlord is not required but he is only required to show that he is the landlord of the premises within the meaning of the said term under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The evidence, particularly, the admission of R.W.1 is quoted in para 9 of the order of the learned Rent Controller that the parents of the respondent had mortgaged the property to petitioner’s vendor and that the parents of the respondent and after them, the respondent continued to remain in possession of the said property as tenants. The sale deed of the petitioner under Exs.P2 and P3 show that the sale deed is attested also by the respondent. The said aspect coupled with the requirement of establishing the ingredients of definition of the landlord being sufficient to discharge the burden on the petitioner, the lower appellate Court has committed error in not appreciating the said statement of the respondent. The source of title of the petitioner is not required to be established in proceedings of this nature. The lower appellate Court, therefore, reached the findings on the crucial issue against the petitioner without appreciating the scope of these proceedings and without dealing with the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller. In my view, therefore, the impugned order of the lower appellate Court is clearly perverse and liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. 9. In the result, R.A.No.427 of 2001 shall stand restored before the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration. The lower appellate Court is directed to issue notice to both parties and the parties shall have liberty to produce additional evidence, if they so chose, before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court shall hear and decide the appeal afresh within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 15, 2011 DSK