THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4916 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 30.07.2008 in R.A. No.54 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner and the fourth respondent herein are the petitioners/landlords, and the respondents 1 to 3 herein are the respondents/tenants, before the trial court. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. 3. The fourth respondent is the original owner of the premises in question. She filed Rent Control Case No.487 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under Section 10 (2) (i), 10 (2) (vi) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for eviction of the tenants stating that she purchased the premises in question from one Poonam Chand under registered sale deed dated 27.11.1995. By the date of her purchase, father of the tenants by name Chenna Rajaiah was the tenant of the premises having obtained the same from her vendor for running a Kirana shop on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- exclusive of electricity consumption charges, payable on or before 5th of every succeeding month. The tenant was informed about the attornment of the tenancy in her favour orally and by letter dated 29.01.1997, but, inspite of the same and having knowledge that she became owner of the premises, he committed default in payment of rent. So, she filed Rent Control Case No.297 of 1997 before the III Additional Rent Controller for his eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rents and also personal requirement. But, the said case was dismissed for default on 10.02.2000 wherein the said Chenna Rajaiah had taken a plea that he was continuously sending monthly rent through money order to her vendor. The said Chenna Rajaiah filed Original SuitNo.4217 of 1995 on the file of the IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the original owner Poonam Chand to restrain him from interfering with the possession of the schedule premises, with a mala fide intention and without any title or ownership over the property, and she impleaded herself in the said suit. The said suit was dismissed and on appeal, the same was confirmed. In the year 2002, the said Chenna Rajaiah died in the year 2002. Thereafter, she filed the present case against the tenants, who are legal heirs of late Chenna Rajaiah, for eviction for withholding monthly rent for the period from December, 1995 to November, 2003; denial of her title over the schedule premises, and also requirement of the premises for personal use as her youngest son, who is unemployed, requires the premises for carrying on Dyes and Chemicals business. 4. The tenants filed counter denying the allegations made by the landlord and stating that they became tenants only after demise of their father Chenna Rajaiah, and that, their father never set up a claim of ownership of the schedule premises with himself nor he denied the title of the vendor of the landlord no.1, and that, in view of long pendency of the suit and the appeal, their father was advised not to pay the rent to the landlord no.1 as the matter of sub judice, and in fact, vendor of the landlord no.1 agreed to sell the property to their father, who had been in occupation of the same for the last more than 40 years, and that, after filing of the present case, they ascertained the facts with regard to ownership of the landlord no.1 and paid rent to the counsel for the landlord no.1 and also obtained receipts up to date, and as such, the default is not willful default, and that the requirement of the landlord no.1 is false. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the Rent Control Case. 5. During pendency of the Rent Control Case, the petitioner herein/landlord no.2 purchased the schedule premises and was impleaded as second petitioner in the case. 6. During enquiry, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked on behalf of the landlords, and R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked, on behalf of the tenants. 7. The trial Court, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Rent Control Case vide order dated 31.12.2005 directing the tenants to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule premises to the landlords within two months from the date of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants filed appeal before the appellate court, and vide the impugned judgment, the appellate court allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the trial court. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the landlord no.2/subsequent purchaser. 8. Heard both sides. 9. The landlord no.1 filed the petition for eviction of the tenants on two grounds viz. (1) for willful default in payment of rent committed for the period from December, 1995 to November, 2003 i.e. for a period of 96 months, and (2) denial of title of the landlord by the tenants with mala fide intention to stay in the premises in question. Upon appreciation of the material available on record, the Trial court accepted the two grounds and held that there was willful denial of title of mother of P.W.1 by the tenants and that the arrears of rent for a total period of 96 months @ Rs.300/- per month has been paid on 15.4.2004. P.W.2 is the purchaser of the premises in question during pendency of the Rent Control Case. The documents filed by the landlords viz. sale deed executed by mother of P.W.1 in favour of P.W.2 under Ex.A15 and the rectification deed under Ex.A16, would clearly go to show that all the existing rights in respect of the tenancy have been transferred to P.W.2, who is subsequent purchaser. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, neither the mother of P.W.1 nor P.W.2 had withdrawn the arrears of rent for the period of 96 months deposited by the tenants to the credit of the suit. Therefore, mere depositing the rents into the court amounts to waiver or not, has not been considered by the appellate court. Similarly, the appellate court has not taken into consideration the two important documents through which P.W.2 is claiming right, title and interest including the right to prosecute further the eviction petition filed by mother of P.W.1. Had these two aspects been taken into consideration, then, certainly, the appellate court would have adjudicated the dispute in a right manner. 10. A specific plea has been taken by the tenants duly denying the title of vendor of mother of P.W.1. The aspect whether the tenants have wantonly and willfully denied the title of the landlords with mala fide intention or whether it is with a bona fide intention, has to be decided by the appellate court. These aspects have not been considered by the appellate court. Therefore, it is a fit case where the matter can be remanded to the appellate court to decide the points viz. (i) whether the denial of the title of the landlords by the tenants is a bona fide one and (ii) whether the vendor of P.W.2 transferred all her existing rights in the disputed property including the right to prosecute the suit further in pursuance of Exs.A15 and A16, and (iii) whether the deposit of rents by the tenants into the court can be said to be default within the meaning of Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. 11. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the judgment of the appellate court and remanding the matter to the appellate court for adjudication of the appeal afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. The appellate court shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 28.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4916 of 2008 28.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4916 of 2008 28.2.2011 Between: Nanda Kishore Yadav …Petitioner And Chenna Ramulu & others …Respondents