(1.) G.Nathmal, the unsuccessful tenant in both the Courts below filed this revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P.Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience).
(2.) Sri D. Niranjana Rao, the original landlord died during the pendency of C.R.P. and through C.M.P.No. 22410/2001 his legal representatives were brought on record. The landlord D. Niranjana Rao filed R.C.No. 839 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Rent Control, Hyderabad for the relief of eviction of tenant on the ground of wilful default and also on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The tenant filed a counter and he had specifically denied the ownership of D. Niranjana Rao and also denied that he is the landlord. The learned Rent Controller had recorded the evidence of P.W. 1 and also R.W. 1 and R.W. 2 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-6 and R-1 to R-35 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the denial of the title of the landlord by the tenant is not bona fide and ultimately had ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred R.A.No. 567 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, the appellate authority and the appellate authority also after discussing this aspect in detail had confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed under Section 22 of the Act.
(3.) Sri P.R. Balarami Reddy, learned counsel representing revision petitioner/ tenant made the following submissions. The learned counsel pointed out the relevant portion of the evidence of P.W. 1, R.W. 1 and R.W. 2 and had contended that the relationship of landlord and tenant had not been specifically denied. The learned counsel also further contended that the denial of title is not a ground at all for eviction of tenant under the pretext that the material available on record would disclose such denial of title. The counsel also pointed out that though Ex. P-l the alleged rental agreement was relied upon on the ground that there is no specific denial, the tenant never expected the same and this aspect was lost sight of by both the Courts below. The learned counsel further pointed out that the conduct of the parties also may have to be taken into consideration and the bona fides of the tenant can be culled out from the fact that he himself filed R.C. praying for permission to deposit the rents and in this background, at any rate it cannot be said that the ground of denial of title not being bona fide cannot be said to have been attracted.