REIANGI NAGESWARA RAO Vs. TATHA CHIRANJEEVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The C.R.P. is filed against the orders of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Eluru in C.M.A.No. 3 of 1994, dated 16-1-1995 confirming the Order of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Eluru) in R.C. C. NO. 8 of 1984, dated 16-8-1994.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the respondents before the Rent Controller in R.C.C.No. 8 of 1984 and the appellants in C.M.A.No. 3 of 1995. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed before the Rent Controller are referred to herein.

(3.) The petitioner laid a claim before the learned Rent Controller in R.C.C.No. 8 of 1984 seeking eviction of the respondents from the 'B' schedule property and for delivery of vacant possession. The grounds in support of the claim were that the respondents-tenants committed default in payment of rent, that the denial of the title of the petitioner to the property was not bona fide, that they sublet the premises and they made material alterations to the suit schedule property. It was the case of the petitioner that he purchased the entire 'A' schedule property of which 'B' schedule property formed part of a portion. The 1st respondent is the brother-in-law of the petitioner (married the sister of the petitioner) and the 2nd respondent is the wife of the 1st respondent. Since 1st respondent and 2nd respondent are husband and wife, they are being referred to only as respondent. It is his case that he purchased the property from one Mr. Subba Raju under a Registered Sale Deed Ex. A-1 dated 31-1-1968, After purchase, 'B' schedule portion was leased out to respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month and subsequently, it was reduced to Rs. 150/- per month as some portion of the 'B' schedule property was given to one Dr. Y. V. Raghava Rao. It is the case of the petitioner that a written lease agreement was concluded between the petitioner and the respondent Ex. A-4 on 9-12-1981 fixing the lease amount at Rs. 200/- per month, but however, the respondent failed to pay the rent from July, 1993 and thus he committed default in payment o'f rent. It was also the case of the petitioner that he sublet the schedule premises to some other person a portion thereof. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it is stated that the entire 'A' schedule property was owned by him. In fact he has purchased the same by selling his own properties. But, however, since there was some deficiency in making full payment to the owner, the 1st respondent requested the petitioner, who was the money-lender to advance the amount to enable him to purchase the land. However, he has advanced the same on a condition that the property should be registered in his name. Thus, the property came to be registered in favour of the petitioner, even though he is not the owner. Therefore, he submits that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant at all. It is also denied that he paid any rent so far and the so called lease agreement was a forged document. -