THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 4103 of 2008 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 28.07.2008 passed in RA No.59 of 2006 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellate authority’), whereby and whereunder the appellate authority reversed the order dated 31.12.2005 passed in R.C. No. 20 of 2003 by the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The respondent herein filed RC No. 20 of 2003 seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of denial of title and willful default in payment of rents. The petitioner herein is the tenant before the Rent Controller. The first respondent herein initiated the proceedings for eviction of the petitioner under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vi) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner herein will be referred to as ‘tenant’ and the first respondent herein will be referred to as ‘landlord’ for the sake of convenience. As seen from the record, the landlord filed another RC No.19 of 2003 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. The said RC was dismissed. Challenging the orders passed in RC No.19 of 2003, RA No. 58 of 2006 was filed and against the orders passed in RC No.20 of 2003, RA No.59 of 2006 was filed. The appellate Court passed common orders on 28.07.2008 and dismissed RA No.58 of 2006, but, however, allowed RA No.59 of 2006 on two grounds i.e., willful default and denial of title of the landlord. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed the present revision. Presently we are concerned with the orders passed in RC No.20 of 2003 and in RA No.59 of 2006. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The father of the landlord late Sri Sitaram Jaiswal was the absolute owner of the suit schedule mulgi bearing No.15-5-82 and two other mulgies bearing Nos.15-5-83 and 15-5-84 apart from residential house bearing No.15- 5-694, situated at Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. Late Sri Sitaram Jaiswal had let out the petition schedule mulgi to the tenant and the tenant obtained the same for the purpose of running a stationery shop and the rent on the date of demise of late Sitaram Jaiswal was at Rs.865/- per month exclusive of electricity charges. Late Sitaram Jaiswal died on 22.12.2000 leaving behind his wife, three sons, namely Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal (landlord), Arjun Kumar Jaiswal (respondent No.3 herein) and Prithvi Raj and two daughters namely Prem Kishori Jaiswal and Kamal Kishori Jaiswal. Out of three sons only two sons namely Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal (landlord) and his brother Arjun Kumar Jaiswal and their sister Kamal Kishori Jaiswal are made as parties to the present litigation and the other legal heirs of Sitaram Jaiswal are not made as parties to the litigation. Prem Kishori Jaiswal and Kamal Kishori Jaiswal instituted a suit against their brothers and mother and also against the tenant herein and other tenants in O.S. No.1782 of 2001 on the file of the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The landlord and his other brothers seems to have claimed that the properties are the ancestral properties and the plaintiffs in the said suit seems to have claimed that the properties are the self acquired properties of their father. However, we are not concerned with the rival contentions of the parties in the said suit. Suffice to say that the said suit was filed on 07.08.2001 and decreed in part on 12.04.2005 by passing a preliminary decree for partition of A and B schedule properties and holding that the plaintiffs therein are entitled to 1/6th share each of the ¼ share of plaint A schedule properties and that they are also entitled to 1/6th share each out of the immovable properties shown in B schedule and defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to 1/6th share each. All the three sons of late Sitaram Jaiswal filed RC No.333 of 2001 seeking eviction of Habeeb Abdul Basith from the mulgi No.15-5-84, but however, the said RC was dismissed mainly on the ground that as there was a bona fide dispute about the ownership, the tenant is justified in sending the rents by MO and that the tenant had not committed any willful default in the said proceedings. Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal (landlord), who is one of the sons of late Sitaram Jaiswal, got issued a legal notice to the tenant on 11.09.2002 in Ex.A1 stating that after the death of their father there was an understanding between himself and his brothers and that the mulgi, which is in the possession the tenant, fell to his share and that his younger brother Arjun Kumar Jailwal is in possession of mulgi No.15- 5-83 and his another younger brother Prithviraj Jaiswal got mulgi No.15-5-84 and that the tenant was informed about this arrangement and in spite of the same the tenant failed to pay the rents from January 2001 to August 2002 and the total arrears of rent of Rs.24,000/- should be sent to him within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice and failing which the landlord would initiate legal proceedings against the tenant. The tenant had sent a reply on 04.10.2002 in Ex.B1 contending, inter alia, that after the demise of the original landlord Sitaram Jaiswal the brother of the landlord Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, namely Arjun Kumar Jaiswal had been collecting rents from him to the knowledge of Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal and thereafter the sisters of the landlord filed a suit for partition and that he is also a party to the said suit and that he has not committed any default in payment of rents. However, in the said reply notice the tenant had requested Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal the landlord to furnish the joint bank account number of the legal heirs of Sitaram Jaiswal to enable him to deposit the rents from July 2002 onwards. It appears that Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal did not send any reply to this reply notice, but filed the eviction petition as referred to above in RC No.20 of 2003. The main allegation of the landlord is that after the death of his father, the tenant, taking advantage of the death of his father, stopped paying the rents from January 2001 in spite of oral demands and issuing legal notice dated 11.09.2002 and that the tenant has to pay Rs.20,760/- towards arrears of rent from January 2001 to December 2002 and that the tenant had taken a false plea that he paid rents to Arjun Kumar Jaiswal and that his brother Arjun Kumar Jaiswal had no right or authority to collect the rents from the tenant. It is also the case of the landlord that the tenant had paid him Rs.2,000/- till June 2002 and subsequently withheld the rents and committed default. It is also his case that in the suit filed by his sisters the tenant evaded to receive the summons and subsequently when a paper publication was made he made the appearance through his advocate on 31.07.2002 and that in the said suit his sisters filed IA(SR) No.9401 of 2002 praying the Court to direct the tenant herein and other tenants to deposit the rents into the credit of the suit. The tenant filed a counter mainly contending that after the death of Sitaram Jaiswal his sons including the landlord herein met him and asked him to pay rents to Arjun Kumar Jaiswal and, accordingly, he paid rents to Arjun Kumar Jaiswal and thus he has not committed any default in payment of rents. It is also denied that he evaded to receive summons in OS No.1782 of 2001. He has specifically denied the claim of the landlord that the petition schedule mulgi fell to the share of the landlord. In fact the second and third respondents were impleaded subsequently as per the orders in IA Nos.42 of 2004 and 5 of 2004, dated 31.03.2004 and 28.06.2004 respectively. The second respondent filed counter contending that Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal has no right to collect the rents from the tenant and that he is only one of the co-owners along with respondent No.2. The alleged arrangement pleaded by Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal is also denied. According to the second respondent the actual monthly rent of the premises is Rs.1200/- and that taking advantage of the demise of her father, the tenant stopped paying rents from January 2001 and thus committed willful default. The third respondent also filed counter stating that the tenant paid monthly rents from January 2001 to December 2002 to him and that he had spent that amount for the maintenance of suit mulgi and other immovable properties. He has also denied the claim of Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal that he is the landlord of the suit mulgi. Basing on the above pleadings, the Rent Controller formulated the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rent as alleged by the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondent denied the title of the petitioner over the petition schedule property? On behalf of the landlord, the landlord himself was examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked and on behalf of the tenant, the tenant himself was examined as Rw.1 and third respondent was examined as RW.2 and Ex.B1 was marked. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that a partition suit was filed by the sisters of the landlord and his brothers and that RW.2 Arjun Kumar Jaiswal himself deposed that he was collecting rents from the tenant and therefore there was no willful default and that it cannot be said that the denial of title is not bona fide. Accordingly, the petition filed by the landlord was dismissed. Challenging the same, he filed the appeal in RA No.59 of 2006. The appellate authority, on re-appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal is a landlord within the definition of landlord and that a co-owner has to be treated as landlord and that eviction petition filed by him is maintainable. The appellate authority also came to the conclusion that the tenant paid Rs.2000/- towards rent for the month of June 2002 to Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal and thus the tenant has admitted that Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal is the landlord and subsequently failed to pay rents to the landlord and that the evidence of RW.2 is not acceptable that he was receiving rents and that when there was a dispute the tenant ought to have initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Act and deposited the rents into the Court and the facts and circumstances of the case go to show that the tenant has committed willful default and therefore he is liable to be evicted. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has filed the present revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that the main intention of the tenant is that Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal alone is not the landlord, but, it does not mean that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord. It is also his submission that since a partition suit was pending it cannot be said that denial of title of Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal by the tenant is not bona fide. On the issue of willful default, it is his submission that the tenant was regularly paying rents to Arjun Kumar Jaiswal and in support of his claim, he has also examined the said Arjun Kumar Jaiswal as RW.2 and subsequently he deposited the rents as per the order dated 02.03.2007 passed by the Rent Controller in IA No.237 of 2006 in R.C. No.239 of 2006 and aggrieved by the said order the landlord filed an appeal in R.A. No. 138 of 2007 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on merits by an order dated 28.07.2008 and thus the tenant has taken steps under Section 9 of the Act. He further contended that the appellate Court is not justified in holding that the tenant has not taken steps under Section 9 of the Rent Control Act. It is also argued that the appellate Court erred in reversing the well reasoned findings of the learned Rent Controller without assigning any cogent reasons. In support of his contentions he has relied on the judgments reported in J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd., v. M.R. Murali[1], Abdul Rehman v. Saraswathi Prasad Singh[2], Satyanarayana Singh v. Y. Maniamma[3], C. Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan (dead) by LRs[4] and Radhakrishna Yadav (died) per LRs v. G. Kalavati Bai[5]. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that taking advantage of the death of the father of the landlord the tenant stopped paying rents and when a notice was issued to him informing that the suit mulgi fell to the share of the landlord, the tenant instead of paying rents gave a reply denying the title of the landlord and taking a false plea that he paid rents to Arjun Kumar Jaiswal (RW.2) and that on facts the appellate Court found that the plea taken by the tenant is not correct. It is his submission that merely because there is dispute among the family members of the landlord, the tenant is not justified in denying the title of the landlord and in stopping payment of rents to the landlord. It is also his submission that when the landlord specifically issued a legal notice to the tenant, even then the tenant failed to pay the rents to the landlord and committed default. It is also his submission that admittedly the tenant paid Rs.2000/- towards rent up to June 2002 and subsequently committed default in payment of rents and that when the landlord filed I.A. No.103 of 2003 and sought a direction to the tenant to deposit the rents the tenant instead of depositing rents filed an appeal challenging the said order and when RA No.295 of 2003 filed by the tenant was dismissed. Though he has deposited rents, but again he was not regular in depositing the rents and thus the rents were deposited without issuing any notice to the landlord as required under Rule 5(4) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules and therefore the order passed by the appellate authority is perfectly justified and no interference is required. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions reported in the cases Mohammed Abdul Rahman v. B. Manorama[6] and Ganeshlal v. Meera Bai[7]. The points that arise for consideration are; (1) Whether the impugned order is sustainable? (2) Whether the tenant has denied the title of the landlord and whether such denial is bona fide one in the facts and circumstances of the case? and (3) Whether the tenant has committed willful default in payment of rents? POINT No.2: It is not in dispute that Sitaram Jaiswal was the original owner of the suit mulgi and the tenant was inducted into possession of the same by him. It is also not in dispute that Sitaram Jaiswal died on 22.12.2000 leaving behind his wife, three sons namely Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal, Prithviraj Jaiswal and Arjun Kumar Jaiswal and two daughters, namely Prem Kishori Jaiswal and Kamal Kishori Jaiswal. Admittedly, after the demise of Sitaram Jaiswal, Prem Kishori Jaiswal and Kamal Kishori Jaiswal instituted a suit in O.S. No. 1782 of 2001 on the file of the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against their brothers, mother and the tenants, and the said suit was decreed on 12.04.2005 holding that both the sisters and their brothers are entitled to each 1/6th share of 1/4th share of plaint A schedule properties. Thus, the claim of the landlord that the suit mulgi was allotted to him as per the wish of his father and that he alone is entitled to collect rents from the tenant cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the claim of Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal is disputed by his own sisters and brother Arjun Kumar Jaiswal (RW.2) and in the above circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no dispute to the claim of Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal and when there is a dispute between brothers and sisters and a partition suit was filed, to which the tenant is also a party, it appears that in all fairness the denial of title by the tenant cannot be said to be not bona fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has relied on a decision reported in Radhakrishna Yadav (died) per LRs v. G. Kalavati Bai (5 supra). In that case one Ranveer Singh was the owner of the petition schedule property and he sold the said property on 27.06.1992 under a registered sale deed in favour of one Smt. G. Kalavathi Bai. On the same day, the general power of attorney holder of Ranveer Singh sold the same property to another lady by name Smt. Seshikala under a different registered sale deed. The tenant was inducted into possession by the original owner Ranveer Singh. Then Kalavathi Bai and Ranveer Singh informed the tenant to pay the rent to Kalavathi Bai. Meanwhile another purchaser Smt. Seshikala also called upon the tenant to pay rents to her. Then the tenant got issued a notice to both Kalavathi Bai and Seshikala asking them to show their respective sale deeds as rival claims were put forward by both of them. Meanwhile, Smt. Seshikala filed eviction petition against the tenant seeking his eviction. Then the tenant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that denial of title of the landlady by the tenant is bona fide. However, in another RC the eviction orders were passed. This Court observed that the only recourse left to the landlady in the eviction petition is to approach a competent civil Court, get her title to the suit property declared and obtain orders of the Civil Court to withdraw the amounts being deposited by the tenant in RCC No.595 of 1992 and also if she still desires to evict the tenant, to obtain orders of eviction from the Civil Court concerned. Till she obtains such orders from the Civil Court, the landlady is not entitled to evict the tenant from the petition schedule premises. Thus, it was held that when two rival claimants each separately issued a notice to the tenant to pay rent to them claiming title independently to schedule premises and when the tenant fled a petition before the Rent Controller under Section 9 of the Act to permit him to deposit the rents into the Court and when the Rent controller permitted the tenant to deposit rents, the only course left open to the landlady is to file an eviction suit before Civil Court. It was also held that after passing an order under Section 9 of the Act, filing of eviction petition under Section 10 of the Act by the landlady (one of the two rival claimants) is not legal and without jurisdiction. In this case also when, admittedly, the sisters of the landlord filed a suit for partition and when there is a dispute among the co-owners and when one of the co- owners alone sought eviction of the tenant alleging that the tenant committed default and when the tenant claims that he is paying rents to another co-owner, it cannot be said that the denial of title by the tenant is not bona fide. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has also relied on a decision reported in J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd., v. M.R. Murali (1 supra). In that case, the original owner of the suit premises is the Municipal Corporation. But, however, the landlords were allotted the suit premises, who in turn leased out the premises to the tenants. The landlords filed applications for eviction of the tenants on the ground of willful default. The tenants denied the allegation of willful default and raised dispute as to the rate of rent and quantum of arrears. However, subsequently, the tenants filed an additional counter wherein they had averred that on making enquires from the Municipal Corporation that long term lease granted by the Corporation in favour of the landlord came to an end on the death of original allottee and that the Municipal Corporation had taken steps to create a lease directly in favour of the actual occupants. In such circumstances the issue that came up for consideration is whether the denial of title by the tenant was bona fide. The apex Court observed that mere denial of the title of the landlord is not enough, unless such denial of title is not bona fide. Not bona fide would mean absence of good faith or non genuineness of the tenant’s plea. If denial of title by the tenant is an outcome of good faith or honesty or sincerity, and is intended only to project the facts without any intention of causing any harm to the landlord it cannot be said as not bona fide. It was further observed that to answer the question whether an assertion of denial of landlords title by the tenant was bona fide or not, all the surrounding circumstances under which the assertion was made have to be seen. It was further held that the additional counter and the contents of the notice by the Municipal Corporation to the tenants would not be sufficient to make out a case of denial of title and in any case it cannot be considered to be ‘not bona fide’. The tenants have stated that the ultimate owners of the property were the Municipal Corporation and they had agreed their willingness to pay rent to the Municipal Corporation under threat of eviction solely for the purpose of protecting their own possession over the premises. They had neither disowned the title of the landlords at the inception of the tenancy nor have set up any title in themselves nor attorned in favour of the Municipal Corporation by voluntarily entering into direct tenancy with the Municipal Corporation by passing their own landlords. Thus, the apex Court held that no case of eviction on the ground of “tenants” denial of landlords title “not bona fide” was made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has also relied on the decision reported in Abdul Rehman v. Saraswathi Prasad Singh (2 supra). In that case, in the civil litigation, ultimately, the landlord was found to have lost his right in the property. This Court, after referring to the definition of landlord under the provisions of the Act, observed that if a person claims to be a rightful owner, he must show that he is having a right against whole world to occupy a building. In the absence of any such plea or evidence, a person cannot claim to be owner or landlord of the building covered by the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the apex Court in M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma (AIR 1981 SC 1113) wherein it was held that if during the pendency of proceedings, it is shown that person who sought eviction lost his interest or his right comes to an end, an eviction petition would not lie. It was also held that non-payment of rent to landlord who has no right at all, does not amount to willful default. Reliance is also placed in Satyanarayana Singh v. Y. Maniamma (3 supra). In that case receipts were passed jointly by the respondent-landlady, her son and daughter-in-law as co-owners of the property. In the above circumstances, the tenant raised a plea that the respondent-landlady alone has no right to file eviction petition. In such circumstances, it was held that mere assertion by the tenant that there are some more co-owners apart from petitioner-landlord/landlady having right over property does not amount to denying title of landlord/landlady, particularly when tenancy is not in dispute. In view of the above