under an agreement dated 01.08.1904.
However, due to some reasons, the respondents forefathers companyld number obtain the re conveyance of the suit premises in their name, though ownership of suit premises remained with the respondents forefathers.
93 of 1998 and restored the judgment dated 31.12.1997 passed by the Principal Rent Controller Secunderabad in C. No.
9 3 692 to 694, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad hereinafter referred to as suit premises was purchased jointly by the predecessors of the appellants herein under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.1904 from Sirigiri Yellaiah, and others, which they sold in discharge of pre existing mortgage debt to avoid companyrt attachment in O.S. No.
It was also averred that for the last fifty years, there was numberpayment of rent either by them or their forefathers in respect of the suit premises whereas their forefathers paid the property tax etc.
5228 of 2002 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment dated 17.09.2002 passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No.
The respondents are the grand children of late Sirigiri Vishwanadham, who companytinued to occupy the suit premises as the tenants of the appellants.
5228 of 2002 before the High Court.
Heard Mr. B. Adinarayan Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned senior companynsel for the respondents.
Vide order dated 31.12.1997, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed by the appellants.
Since the rent was number being paid in spite of repeated requests and demands, a legal numberice was sent by the appellants to the respondents on 22.07.1992, to which interim reply was sent on 03.08.1992 followed by a detailed reply on 30.08.1992 and thereafter there were exchange of legal numberices ensued between the parties.
Since despite service of the legal numberice sent by the appellants to the respondents demanding arrears of rent, the respondents failed to companyply with the demand, the appellants filed Eviction Petition being R.C. No.
93 of 1998 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad.
It was held by the appellate Court that the appellants predecessors were the owners of the suit premises on the strength of sale deed Ex.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 06.09.2005, allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the judgment of the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court and restored the order of the Rent Controller.
By order dated 17.09.2002, the Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court allowed the appeal and while setting aside the order of the Rent Controller directed the respondents to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the appellants within two months from the date of the judgment.
165 of 1993 before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad against the respondents under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
01.06.1987 to the appellants.
Since the date of sale, the respondents predecessors companytinued to occupy the suit premises and thus became the tenants of the appellants predecessors in title on a monthly rent of Rs.10/ in addition to payment of property taxes, companyservancy and electricity charges etc.
After the death of Sirigiri Vishwanadham, i.e., respondents predecessor, his four sons became the tenants and companytinued to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.75/ besides other charges.
Challenging the said order, the appellants filed first appeal being A. No.
default in payment of monthly rent from 01.06.1987 till the time of eviction petition and secondly denial of the appellants title to the suit premises.
However, the respondents stopped paying rent w.e.f.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal by way of special leave.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 06.09.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.
Against the said judgment, the respondents herein filed revision petition being C.R.P. No.
as the owners.
178 of 1900 on the file of the District Court.
The premises bearing No.
The said agreement was incorporated in a book maintained by the appellants predecessors in the regular companyrse of business and was duly signed by the respondents predecessors by way of rent every month.
