THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3791 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-06-2009 in R.C.A.No.4 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby, the order and decree dated 25.11.2003, in R.C.C.No.20/97 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, dismissing the petition seeking eviction of appellant/tenant from the scheduled property and delivery of vacant possession of the same, was set aside and granted two months time to the appellant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the respondent/landlady within two months. 2. For better appreciation of facts, the parties herein after are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The petitioners filed the petition, under Section 22 of the AP Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking eviction of the respondent from the schedule premises on the ground that the schedule property was leased out to the respondent orally for a period of three years commencing from 01- 05-1989 to 30-04-1992 on payment of rent at Rs.600/- per month and subsequently the lease period was extended till 30-04-1995 on monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and that the respondent is irregular in paying the rents and committed default in payment of rents from August 1996. Further, the respondent also damaged the doors and windows of the premises and the petitioner wanted to reconstruct the house for their personal occupation, as they have no other building other than the schedule premises. Hence the petition. 4. The respondent-tenant filed the counter denying the allegations in the petition and stated that the premises in question was given to the parents of the respondent by the husband of the first petitioner; that subsequent to the demise of the first petitioner, the rents are being paid to her eldest son by name, Chenna Yella Rao, and as such the respondent had never committed any default in paying the rent to the real owner of the house; that the petitioners are strangers to the respondent; that the petitioners never leased out schedule premises to the respondent; and the petition is filed with a view to harass the respondent. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following points for consideration: i. Whether denial of title of the landlady over the schedule property by the Tenant is not bonafide? ii. Whether the Respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents in respect of the demised premises? If so, whether he has established that the default committed by him is not willful and deliberate? iii. Whether the Tenant committed acts of waste as contended by the landlady? iv. Whether there are any bonafidies in the Landlord seeking eviction of the Tenant from the schedule property on the ground of personal use and occupation? 6. During trial, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1 to A.5 were got marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined but no documents were marked. 7. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that there is a title dispute between the children of the original owner; that the schedule premises was not damaged by the respondent/tenant; that there is no willful default committed by the respondent in paying the rents to the schedule property; that there is no bonafide requirement of the schedule property by the petitioners; that the second petitioner could not satisfactorily establish the three grounds urged by her for seeking eviction of the respondent from the scheduled property and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 8. The appellate Court, upon re-considering evidence on record, came to conclusion that by virtue of Will Ex.A-4, the 1st petitioner is entitled to succeed the property during her life time and vested reminder to the 2nd petitioner; that therefore, the petitioners are the owners of the property and the respondent/tenant failed to pay rent in question; that the respondent also committed default in payment of rents and accordingly, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the trial Court. Challenging same, the present revision petition is filed by the respondent. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the appellate Court is correct, legal and proper and whether the grounds on which the eviction is sought for, are established by the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein contented that the will through which the respondent herein claiming right, title and interest over the schedule premises has not been filed; that there is no evidence to show that the respondent is the owner of the schedule property; that the petitioner/tenant has been paying the rent to the son of the original owner; that there is no default in payment of rent committed by the petitioner herein; that the premises in question is not required for bonafide purpose of petitioner; that the Trial Court after considering the evidence on record rightly dismissed the petition; that the appellate Court ought not have set aside the well reasoned order of the trial Court and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contented that Ex.A-4 is not denied or disputed; that in pursuance of Ex.A-4, the respondent herein became the absolute owner; that Ex.A-4 is also recognized by the son of the original owner because he is having right over ‘A’ scheduled property which he got it through the same Will and R.W.2 is the person who executed Ex.A.5-sale deed has not denied and disputed about the execution of A-4-Will, which is a registered one; that if the Will is taken into consideration, the wife of the original owner was given life interest and after her death, vested reminder to the second petitioner, who is no other than the daughter of the original owner; that neither R.W.1 nor R.W.2 filed any document to show that R.W.2 has got right, title and interest over the schedule premises; that therefore, the denial of title by the petitioner herein is not a bonafide one and it is a malafide one with a view to avoid payment of rents; that the respondent herein is not having any other residential premises to live and it is required for her bonafide personal use; that admittedly, petitioner herein has not been paying or tendering the rents to anyone of the petitioners in the trial Court even after issuance of notice; that therefore the appellate Court appreciated the evidence in a right perspective and ordered for eviction of the petitioner which needs no interference by this Court and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 12. It is not in dispute before this Court that the husband of the first petitioner and the father of the second petitioner is the original owner of the petition schedule property. It is also not in dispute before this Court that the father of the respondent has taken the premises in question on lease on payment of monthly rental of Rs.600/- from the husband of the first petitioner. The husband of the first petitioner died in the year 1978. According to the case of the petitioners, the original owner executed a Will in favour of the first petitioner giving life interest and vested reminder to the second petitioner in respect of the schedule property. R.W.2 is no other than the son of the original owner. It is not in dispute before this Court that R.W.2 sold away ‘A’ schedule property, which he got under the original of Ex.A-4 from his father, to some third parties. It is also not in dispute that R.W.1, is no other than the respondent/tenant. The 1st petitioner has not taken any specific plea with regard to the execution of the Will by her husband in her favour giving life interest and vested reminder to their daughter i.e., 2nd petitioner, but at the same time, when the Will is marked, no objection has been taken and further one of the beneficiaries under the Will, who is examined on behalf of the respondent, not disputed about the correctness of Will. So, by virtue of the Will, the first petitioner during her lifetime is entitled to enjoy the property and the second petitioner is entitled to the property as a vested reminder interest after the death of the first petitioner. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner also died during the pendency of the petition. 13. The first ground on which the petition is filed is that there is a denial of title of the petitioners. It is the case of the respondent that he is paying rents due to R.W.2 who is the son of the original owner of the schedule property and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to claim the property. That cannot be said to be a bonafide denial of the title because there is no basis for respondent-tenant to take such a plea and there is no document filed on behalf of the respondent to show that the property in question was given to the son of the original owner i.e. R.W.2. In such circumstances, the respondent-tenant should have made bonafide enquiries with regard to the devolution of property after the death of the original landlord. Instead of verifying as to who is the owner of the property after the death of the original owner, the respondent denied the title of the petitioners willfully and wantonly so as to achieve his object, namely to avoid payment of rent to the petitioners. Therefore, the denial of title by the respondent is shown to be willful and wanton. Hence, on this ground the tenant is liable for eviction. 14. The second ground on which the petition is filed is willful default committed by the respondent in paying the rents. Admittedly, after the death of the original landlord, the respondent/tenant has not been paying rents to the petitioners. The case of the respondent/tenant is that he has been paying rents to the son of the original landlord. But, there is no document to show that the son of the original landlord has devolved the property after the death of his father. In such circumstances, the respondent/tenant must have made bonafide enquiries as to whom the property has been devolved after the death of the original landlord. In the absence of any proof or documentary evidence, it is quite unreasonable for the respondent/tenant to pay the rents to the person, who has no interest in the property. Therefore, it can be said that the tenant is a willful defaulter in paying the rents to the petitioner. 15. Coming to the other point, admittedly, the 2nd petitioner is not having any other residential premises in the town, where the petition schedule property is located. When it is the specific case of the 2nd petitioner that she wants to reside in the house for personal occupation after making necessary alterations, that is not shown to be false or incorrect. Admittedly, 2nd petitioner is not having any other residential premises in the town. Therefore, it can be said that the premises in question is required by the 2nd petitioner for her bonafide personal use. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed a strong reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Radhakrishna Yadav (died) Per L.R.s v G. Kalavati Bai1[1], wherein it is held thus: “it is a well known principle of law that that tenancy court is not competent to decide disputes relating to the title to the petition schedule property if there is a dispute relating to the title of the property concerned. As per the proviso to Section 10(1), if the Rent Controller finds that the denial of the title of the landlord is bonafide, the landlord has no alternative except to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court”. There is no dispute about the law laid down by this Court but in view of the above decision it must be clear that the denial of the title must be a bonafide one. In this case except denying the title of the petitioners, there is no plea set up by the respondent/tenant or his closely related R.W.2, as to how R.W.2 got the schedule property. Even according to R.W.2, by virtue of Will executed by his father, ‘A’ schedule property was devolved upon him and whereas, ‘B’ schedule property has been devolved upon the petitioners. This aspect can be proved by the documents executed by R.W.2 in favour of the third parties. Therefore, as per the recitals in Exs.A-4 and A-5, it is clear that the first petitioner has got life interest over the schedule property and the second petitioner has got vested interest. Therefore, in the absence of any other document, the question of claiming title by the other person does not arise. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate Court on appreciation of evidence on record came to the right conclusion. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ Justice K.C. BHANU Date:15.03.2011 PN/SP THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3791 OF 2009 DATE:15.03.2011 SP/ PN [1] 2003 (1) An.W.R.35(A.P.)