Ramesh Ranganathan, J. - (1.)THIS revision, under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (the Act for brevity), is preferred against the order passed by the appellate Court for Rent Control Cases, Visakhapatnam, in R.C.A. No. 12 of 2013 dated 16.02.2015. The petitioner herein is the appellant in R.C.A. No. 12 of 2013. He preferred the appeal under Section 20(2) of the Act against the order passed by the Rent Controller -cum -IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A. No. 322 of 2012 in R.C.C. No. 54 of 2011.
(2.)THE respondent herein filed I.A. No. 322 of 2012 in RCC No. 54 of 2011 before the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam, under Section 11(4) of the Act to direct the petitioner herein to pay arrears of rent. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent herein contended that he was the landlord, and the revision petitioner -the tenant; he had purchased the building from the revision petitioner and her mother; at her request, he let out the ground floor portion for three months on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/ -; the revision petitioner paid rent for three months promptly; despite his request she did not vacate the premises; on the other hand, she filed O.S. No. 1394 of 2012, which was dismissed for default on 03.07.2012; and the revision petitioner had to pay rent, at Rs. 2,000/ - per month, from September, 2010 onwards.
The petitioner herein filed her counter thereto contending that the respondent was not the owner of the building; it was she who was its owner, as the respondent had to pay her Rs. 1,50,000/ - towards balance sale consideration; when the respondent tried to evict her from the premises forcibly, she had filed O.S. No. 1394 of 2012 which was dismissed for default; she had filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC; without paying the balance sale consideration, the respondent had filed the present petition to harass her; and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

(3.)IN his order, in I.A. No. 322 of 2012 in R.C.C. No. 54 of 2011 dated 22.11.2012, the Rent Controller held that it was an admitted fact that the petition schedule property had been sold by sale deed dated 24.06.2010; the revision petitioner did not deny its execution; it was her case that the respondent had to pay her Rs. 1,50,000/ - towards balance sale consideration which she could agitate in O.S. No. 1394 of 2010; Ex. P -2 was the certified copy of the property tax book, Ex. P -3 the certified copy of the house tax receipts, and Ex. P -4 the certified copy of the electricity bills standing in the name of the respondent; these documents, prima facie, showed the respondents title over the petition schedule property; the name of the respondent was mutated in the Municipal records; the revision petitioner did not file any objections to such mutation, and grant of electrical connection; the respondent had established his prima facie title over the property; the revision petitioners claim, for payment of balance sale consideration, was not germane for consideration in this petition; as the petitioner had executed the sale deed in his favour, the respondent was presumed to be the landlord; the petitioner claimed that she was residing in the petition schedule property; her occupation should be deemed to be as a tenant, as she had no right and title over the petition schedule property; mere denial of title, or the relationship of landlord and tenant, was not sufficient, unless there was evidence to substantiate her claim; she did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of her contention in the counter; she had also not denied the quantum of rent or the arrears of rent; and she should, therefore, pay arrears of rent. The Rent Controller allowed the petition, directing the revision petitioner to pay arrears of rent from September, 2010 onwards at Rs. 2,000/ - per month; and to pay rent each month into the Court on or before the 10th of every succeeding month.