(1.) The petitioner is a tenant in respect of premises bearing No. 16-2-600. Initially, it was owned by one Mohd. Abdul Raheern. Stating that the said property was gifted to him by the original owner, through a gift deed dated 29-8-1988, the respondent filed R.C. No. 138 of 2000, before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, seeking eviction. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of the rents, denied his title and that the premises are needed for his bona fide requirement. He made a reference to the earlier proceedings that ensued between him and the petitioner, and pleaded several facts.
(2.) The petitioner resisted the eviction petition, by pleading several grounds. He stated that the respondent is not the owner of the premises, and that there are no arrears of rent. It is also his case that the respondent owned several premises and the requirement pleaded by him is not bona fide. On a consideration of the rival contentions, the learned Additional Rent Controller recorded findings in favour of the respondent herein, on all the points, and ultimately directed eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed R.A. No.10 of 2003, before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The appellate Court dismissed the R.A., through order dated 8-2-2006. Hence, this C.R.P.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his client was inducted into the premises by the original owner, Mohd. Abdul Raheem, and unless the tenancy was attorned to any subsequent transferee, it cannot be said that there existed any relationship of tenant and landlord, between the petitioner and the respondent. He further submits that the evidence on record discloses that the rent, as directed in R.C. No.458 of 1996, was deposited, and that there was no wilful default on the part of his client. He assails the finding, as regard the bona fide requirement.