KHURSHEED SEHEDUL Vs. WAHEED ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of an order of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court. Hyderabad in Kent Appeal No. 550 of 1971 dated 29-3-1972 by vvhich the learned judge directed dismissal of the appeal preferred by the the petitioner herein.

(2.) It is necessary to state a few facts to appreciate the points raised in this revision petition. The respondent herein filed an application claiming to be the owner of the building No. 14 -1 -67. sauare at Seetharampeth Hyderabad, in R C No. 320 of 1969 against the petitioner here in (said to be be the tenants on the ground rhai the petitioner herein is the tenait of the house on a monthly rental of Rs. 65/- that the petitioner herein has also excuted a rental deed in favour of the respondent on, 10-8 1966 that the petitioner is liable to pay the monthly rent, as per the lease from month to month, and that the petitioner herein has failed to pay the rent accordingly. The landlord has also claimed a sum of Rs. 525/- towards arrears of rent by the petitioner herein upto end of December, 1967, a sum of Rs.660/- from January. 1968 to the end of December 1968, a sum of Rs. 385/- from January 1969 to the end of December I9'9 when the eviction petition was filed Thus he claimed a cotal sum of Rs 1560/-. as ai rears of rent due by the petitioner herein

(3.) The petitioner herein conteited the petition on the ground that he is not the tenant at all in the premises in question, that he was actually residing in another house bearing No 14 1-153. situated at Seetharampeth. Hyderabad. He also stated that the respondent herein is neither the landlord nor is he 3 tenant in respect of the suit premises. He also denied the execution of the rental deed in favour of the respondent He denied that he was in occupation of the suit premises He further says that one Syed Vali Bahadur is still residing in the suit premises.