THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6 OF 2011 Dated 03-12-2011 Between: R.Rajesh Singh. ..Petitioner. And: Subhadra Bai and another. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard the arguments of the respondents. No representation for the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 27-12-2010 passed in E.A.No.55 of 2009 in E.P.No.12 of 2009 in R.C.No.303 of 2004 on the file of the learned II Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: The petitioner is a third party to the rent control proceedings. The 1st respondent herein Smt. Subhadra Bai filed R.C.No.303 of 2004 against R.Sunder Singh under Section 10 (2) (1) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. The case of Subhadra Bai in brief is that she is the absolute owner of the house bearing door No.14-10-1344 and she claims that her late mother had executed a gift deed on 13-7-1990 and also executed a registered G.P.A. in her favour. Originally, she had let out the premises to late R.Satyanarayan Singh, father of the 2nd respondent-R.Sunder Singh and after the death of late Satyanarayan Singh, his son continued as tenant. The rent was increased from time to time. The petitioner got issued a legal notice on 9-9-2002 asking the 2nd respondent to vacate the premises on the ground that his sons require the said premises for starting cycle parts business. Then the tenant denied the title of the petitioner and claimed that one Pramod Singh leased out the premises to him. It appears from record that father of the respondent filed R.C.No.410 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Rent Controller seeking permission to deposit the rents. Alleging that the 2nd respondent committed default in payment of rents from January, 2007 to October, 2007 and that the premises is bonafidely required, the 1st respondent sought eviction of the 2nd respondent. As seen from the averments of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, he had admitted that he was a tenant of late Subhadra Bai. On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. During the course of cross-examination of R.W.1, she seems to have admitted that she purchased the petition schedule property and became the landlady. The trial Court also perusing the order copy in R.C.No.410 of 201 in Ex.X.1 came to the conclusion that the claim of the second respondent was not accepted in R.C.No.410 of 2010. Then the learned Rent Controller accepted the case of the petitioner on the ground of willful default and bonafide requirement and allowed the petition and granted three months time to the second respondent to vacate the premises. Admittedly, second respondent in R.C.No,303 of 2004 has not challenged the said order. Then the first respondent/petitioner filed E.P.No.12 of 2009. Then the petitioner herein filed a claim petition under Section 23 (7) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act claiming that he is the tenant of the premises by virtue of the rent agreement entered into with one Pramod Singh. Learned Rent Controller having considered the entire record came to the conclusion that the documents filed by the petitioner herein that i.e., the 3rd party did not show that he is the tenant of the petition schedule property in December, 2009. The lower Court also considered the evidence of the petitioner herein who was examined as R.W.2 before the lower Court and considering all these aspects dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner. Now the petitioner filed an affidavit contending that he is the tenant of E.P. schedule premises and that he may be given time to vacate the premises by 30-4-2012 on condition of paying an amount of Rs.1500/- per month. This version of the petitioner is not acceptable to other side. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord had submitted that she never accepted the version of the petitioner that he is a tenant of Promod Singh. As seen from the orders of the Lower Court, it is clear that the contention of the petitioner was negatived by passing a reasoned order. I do not see any irregularity to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, this C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been residing with children who are studying nearby the School. In the circumstances, the petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the premises i.e., till 31st March, 2012 on condition of payment of Rs.4,500/- to the respondent on or before 16th December, 2011, failing which the petitioner may execute the eviction order in E.P.12 of 2009 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad or file fresh E.P. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 03-12-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6 OF 2011 Dated 03-12-2011