THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :987 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner, who suffered eviction order dated 3.8.2009 in R.C.C.No.22 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge at Visakhapatnam, which was confirmed in R.C.A.No.3 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge- cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases, Visakhapatnam by judgment dated 17.2.2011, filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not the tenant and that the tenant and landlord relationship was not established and that the denial of title is bonafide. The RCC was filed seeking eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground that the denial of title of the respondent herein is not bonafide and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be evicted. It is the case of the respondent-landlord that she is the absolute owner of the schedule property having succeeded the same from her late husband, who purchased 61 sq. yards of site with a thatched hut in the year 1977 for valuable consideration from Munasa Razak and Pydithalli under Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 16.9.1977, and after the death of her husband in the year 1994, the respondent-landlord left the house and stayed in her parents’ house with her children and she let out the western portion of the house to the petitioner-tenant but he failed to pay the rent and he filed O.S.No.1551 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-landlord and her men not to evict him. It is the case of the petitioner-tenant that the husband of the respondent never purchased the schedule property under the alleged document but in fact, the schedule property was purchased in the name of the respondent’s husband by late G. Mahalakshmi with the funds and assistance of the petitioner’s father and the entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioner’s father and the schedule property was the joint family property and there are disputes with regard to partition of the properties among the members of the petitioner and respondent. Now, it is stated that a suit for partition was filed in respect of the schedule property and as there is title dispute, it cannot be said that the Rent Controller is entitled to decide the title of the respondent herein. The petitioner herein did not file any documents relating to the suit for partition, but the respondent filed Ex.A1 sale deed; Ex.A2- copy of the plaint served on the petitioner herein in O.S.No.1551 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam; Ex.A3- copy of police report with receipt; Ex.A4-copy of tax pass book and Ex.A5-electricity bill. The petitioner herein filed Ex.B1 rental agreement said to have been entered into between the petitioner herein and one K. Srinivas Rao, dated 9.8.2004 and Ex.X1-copy of house hold ration card. The Rent Controller after considering the oral and documentary evidence held that admittedly, Ex.A1--sale deed stands in the name of the husband of the respondent and it was also mutated and there is no documentary evidence to show that the petitioner herein has title to the said property and therefore, the denial of the title is not bonafide. The Rent Appellate Court also held that admittedly Ex.A1-sale deed is in the name of the husband of the respondent and in fact there is no evidence to show that the father of the petitioner purchased the schedule property even as per Ex.A2 plant copy and therefore, it cannot be said that the denial of title is bonafide. The Rent appellate Court further held that there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.A1-sale deed and in fact, even the father of the petitioner herein also did not dispute the title of the respondent herein and he deposed against the case of the petitioner and therefore, there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner in denying the title of the respondent-herein. In view of the aforesaid concurrent findings of the Courts below, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that both the Courts below erroneously recorded the finding with regard to the fact that the denial of title is not bonafide on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, I feel that both the Courts below rightly ordered eviction on the said ground. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the schedule property. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed granting three months time to the petitioner to vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondent-landlord subject to filing an undertaking before the Rent Controller by the end of this month, to the effect that he will vacate and handover vacant possession of the schedule property on or before 29th July, 2011. _________________ Justice V. Eswaraiah Dated: 15.4.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :987 of 2011 15.4.2011