THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5374 of 2009 ORDER: The sole respondent is the brother of the 1st petitioner. He filed R.C.C.No.4 of 2005 before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, seeking eviction of the petitioner, from the schedule premises. It was pleaded that the premises were originally owned by the brother of the 1st petitioner and the respondent, by name Mahaboob Basha, and he executed a registered gift deed, dated 15.07.2005 in favour of the respondent, and that the tenancy between the 1st petitioner and Mahaboob Basha was attorned in favour of the respondent. It was alleged that the 1st petitioner committed default in payment of the rent and that the premises are needed for his personal requirement. The 1st petitioner resisted the R.C.C. The petitioners took the plea that Mahaboob Basha made an oral gift in favour of the 2nd petitioner and that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord between the 1st petitioner and the respondent. Through its order, dated 19.01.2007, the trial Court allowed the R.C.C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa. The appeal was dismissed on 14.09.2006. Hence, this C.R.P. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent. The premises were owned by Mahaboob Basha before 15.07.2005. On that day, he executed a registered gift deed in favour of the respondent, one of his brothers. It is not in dispute that the premises were in use and occupation by the 1st petitioner, another brother of Mahaboob Basha, as a tenant. The respondent filed the R.C.C. seeking eviction of the 1st petitioner by pleading the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement. The petitioners, on the other hand, denied the title of the respondent and asserted the same in themselves, on the basis of an oral gift said to have been made by Mahaboob Basha in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Before the trial Court, PWs.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the respondent and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were filed. On behalf of the petitioners, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.R.1 a visiting card of PW.1 was filed. In effect, the petitioners asserted right in themselves and denied in favour of the respondent, vis-à-vis the property. Ex.P.1 is the registered gift deed, dated 15.07.2005, executed by Mahabbob Basha in favour of the respondent that could have been over come by pleading any subsequent transfer. The reason is that even according to the petitioners the original owner of the property is Mahaboob Basha. The only basis on which they have pleaded title is the oral gift said to have made on 10.09.1998. Further reliance was placed upon unregistered gift deed of the next date. Neither the unregistered gift deed was filed into the Court, nor the oral gift was proved by leading any oral evidence. The very fact that the original owner made a gift through the document in the year 2005, discloses that he did not part with the property earlier to that. Therefore, the ground pleaded by the petitioners as regards the title in themselves was rightly rejected by the trial Court and lower Appellate Court. Once the title of the respondent is established on the strength of Ex.P.1, the petitioners were under obligation to pay the rent, since the tenancy stood attorned. Admittedly the 1st petitioner did not pay the rent. Therefore, a default came to be committed by him. In addition to that the plea of bona fide requirement raised by the respondent was accepted by the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that reasonable time may be granted to his clients to vacate the premises. The 1st petitioner and the respondent are brothers, but hardly any cordiality existed between them. The gift made in 2005, did not result in payment of any rent by the petitioners, nor did the respondent have the benefit of possession. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st petitioner is granted time till 15.08.2010, to vacate the premises subject to clearance of arrears of rent and payment of rent @ Rs.800/- per month, for the future period. The arrears shall be deposited by the end of May, 2010, and that the monthly rent shall be deposited on or before 10th of every month. If he commits default on any of these aspects, it shall be open to the respondent to seek execution of the orders. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20.04.2010. GJ