ORDER Petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is the landlady of the premises in question bearing Dr.No.11-217 with electricity service connection No.370, which is fully described in the petition schedule situated at Palakonda (Village and Mandal) of Srikakulam District. 2. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the eviction petition in R.C.C.No.1 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Rajam. 3. The landlady filed the eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (for short the Act) on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents from August 1992 to June 1993. It is the case of the landlady that she is the owner and enjoyer of two roomed tiled house situated in Gedelavari Street, Ward NO.11 of Palakonda bearing Door NO.11-270 with Electric Service Connection No.370 and she has been attending the maintenance and repairs of the said house by paying the house tax, electrical consumption charges and she has been letting out the house for rent and she was in occupation and the respondent-tenant, who was residing just by the eastern side of her house, took the schedule house on lease from 06-08-1992 to 05-07 -1993 for a period of 11 months from the land lady to reside therein with his family on condition of paying rent @ Rs.200/- per month and accordingly, a lease deed was executed on 06-08-1992 under EX.P-1. From the date of the execution of the lease deed, tenant has been residing in the said house with his family agreeing to pay the rents by 5th of every month to the petitioner and obtain due receipts from her. On 10-08-1992, respondent gave a slip to the petitioner noting the meter reading, but failed to pay the rents in spite of petitioners-repeated demands and therefore, she got issued a legal notice dated 19-04-1993 under Ex. P-4, demanding him to pay the arrears of rent and also to vacate the house and the said notice was evaded. It is the case of the landlady that she is the owner and enjoyer of the petition schedule property and the respondent is her tenant and he has not paid rent from August, 1993 to June, 1995 and therefore, the said eviction petition was filed seeking for eviction of the tenant. 4. It is the case of the landlady that she is the owner and enjoyer of the petition schedule property and the respondent is her tenant and he has not paid rent from August, 1993 to June, 1995 and therefore, the said eviction petition was filed seeking for eviction of the tenant. 4. A counter has been filed by the tenant denying all the averments made in the eviction petition about the ownership of the petitioner and the leasing of the said premises in his favour and petitioner attending the maintenance and repairs of the house and paying house tax, electric consumption charges etc. there is total denial of the landlord and tenant relationship. The execution of the lease deed and non-payment of rents also denied. It is stated that the lease deed said to have been executed is not true, valid and binding on the tenant and there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, and as such, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition. 5. A separate case has been set up by the tenant stating that Sri M.K. Jagannadharao is the original owner and the said M.K. Jagannadharao has five sons and two daughters and petitioner is daughter of said Jagannadha Rao and the wife of Sri M.S. Patnaikandone Sri M.V. Ramanamurthy, the son of M.K. Jagannadharao is the son-in-law of Sri M.S. Patnaik and the petition schedule property is under the management of Sri M. Govinda Rao, son of M.K. Jagannadharao and the said Govinda Rao let out the said premises on 09-08-1992 on a monthly rent of RS.225/- with the consent of all the brothers. The said M. Govinda Rao was examined as R.W.2, as the landlord. It is also stated that the respondent is the tenant of said Govinda Rao, and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and him as landlady and tenant, and he as a tenant, used to pay the rents to the said Govinda Rao and at times to his brothers. It is also stated that the respondent is the tenant of said Govinda Rao, and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and him as landlady and tenant, and he as a tenant, used to pay the rents to the said Govinda Rao and at times to his brothers. It is also stated that the husband of the landlady, who is an advocate sent registered notice on 04-05-1992 to Sri Aliena Chandra Mouleswara Rao on behalf of his wife, the petitioner herein, wherein the landlady claimed 1/7th share in the properties including the petition schedule property and therefore, the petition schedule property is a joint family property and the said house was constructed by M.K. Jagannadha Rao in the year 1961 and it was enjoyed by Jagannadha Rao alone and the land-lady taking inconsistent pleas in issuing the legal notice to her sister claiming 1/7th share in all the joint family property and exclusive possession and prayed to dismiss the eviction petition. 6. During the pendency of the eviction petition, the tenant did not pay the rents and the landlady filed IA14/97 praying to strike of the defence. But the trial Court held that as there is a denial of title, without giving reasonable opportunity to the tenant, it is not just and proper to strike of the defence and accordingly, dismissed the said petition. Against the said petition, the landlady preferred C.M.A. 7 of 1998 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam and the learned Judge thought that it is just and proper to direct the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent and pursuant to the orders in C.M.A., tenant deposited the arrears of rents @ RS.200/- per month from the date of the petition till 31-08-2000 and accordingly, the C.M.A. was disposed of. Pursuant to the said order in C.MA, the entire rents have been deposited into court and as no prejudice or loss will be caused to the landlady in depositing the rents, the C.M.A. was disposed of directing the trial Court to dispose of the R.C.C. within six months. 7. Initially, the landlady filed I.A.No.18 of 1993 in the said R.C.C. under Section 11 of the Act, for deposit of arrears of rent by the tenant. In the said I.A., P.Ws. 7. Initially, the landlady filed I.A.No.18 of 1993 in the said R.C.C. under Section 11 of the Act, for deposit of arrears of rent by the tenant. In the said I.A., P.Ws. 1 to 9 were examined on behalf of the landlady and as per the consent of both the parties, the said evidence of P. Ws.1 to 9 was treated as evidence in R.C.C. and both the parties filed a memo to treat their evidence as P.Ws.1 to 9 in R.C.C. In addition to the said evidence, the landlady examined P.W.10 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-171. On behalf of the respondents. R.Ws.1 to4were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-10 were marked. Exs.X-1 and (sic. to) X-13 are marked through Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid pleadings and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following points: 1. Whether P.W.10 is not competent to give his evidence on behalf of the petitioner as power of attorney holder? 2. Whether the petition schedule house belongs to the petitioner or M.K.Jagannadharao? 3. Whether the petitioner or M. Govindarao son of M.K. Jagannadharao inducted the respondent into the petition schedule house as tenant? 4. Whether the respondent committed default in payment of rents to the petitioner? 5. Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule house? 6. To what result? 9. On point No.1, the Rent Controller held that P.W.1 is the husband of the landlady and power of attorney holder. Power of attorney holder is entitled to depose .on behalf of landlady and on point NO.2 it is held that the house belongs to M.K. Jagannadha Rao. The tenant was inducted in the said premises by the landlady, but not by M. Govinda Rao and the landlady was in possession of the petition schedule property before leasing out the same and she also filed house tax bills, electricity demand notices, electricity bills etc. The tenant was inducted in the said premises by the landlady, but not by M. Govinda Rao and the landlady was in possession of the petition schedule property before leasing out the same and she also filed house tax bills, electricity demand notices, electricity bills etc. and the landlady is also co-owner as her father died intestate leaving his five sons and two daughters and the landlady is one of his daughters, therefore, it is not open for the respondent to contend that the landlady is not the owner of the petition schedule property and held that EX.P-1Iease deed is executable and binding on them and there is landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and the landlady alone inducted the tenant into the petition schedule house as tenant. On point No.4, the trial Court held that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rents and while answering on Points 5 and 6, the trial Court held that the tenant is liable to be evicted. As against the said judgment, the tenant filed C.MA 4/2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam and the Appellate Court framed the following four points for consideration. 1. Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent? 2. Whether EX.P-1 rent deed dated 6-8-1992 is true, valid and binding on the respondent? 3. Whether the respondent has committed wilful default in paying rents to the petitioner? 4. To what relief? 10. The appellate authority-Senior Civil Judge, Rajam answered Points 1 and 2 confirming the decision of the rent controller as he has rightly held that EX.P-1 lease deed is true and valid and held point No.3 in favour of landlady holding that there is wilful default in payment of rent due to denial of title and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that admittedly, the rent controller held that the petition schedule house belongs to late Jagannadha Rao, father of landlady. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that admittedly, the rent controller held that the petition schedule house belongs to late Jagannadha Rao, father of landlady. Late Jagannadha Rao died intestate leaving behind five sons and two daughters and even according to landlady, she gets only 1/7th share in the undivided joint family properties and the husband of the landlady being an advocate is not entitled to depose as a witness on behalf of his wife in view of Rule 13 of he Bar Counsel of India Rules and therefore, the said deposition of P.W.10 is to be excluded, and if that be so, there is no evidence available on record to prove the case of the landlady. 12. It is further contended that there are several discrepancies in the deposition of attesting witnesses of EX.P-1 lease deed and therefore, both the Courts below erred in believing the genuineness of the lease deed and that the lease deed is not established as true, valid and genuine one, and the landlady and tenant relationship has not been established. It is further stated that the tenant only denied the relationship but not the title of the landlady and therefore, denial of relationship is not denial of title. On these contentions, I am of the opinion that the following points arise to decide this civil revision petition: 1. Whether P.W.10, the husband of the landlady and also power of attorney and as advocate is entitled to depose on behalf of his wife/landlady? 2. Whether there was denial of title also apart from denial of relationship of landlady and tenant? 3. Whether the lease deed is proved to be true, valid and genuine? 13. Point NO.1: Insofar as the first point is concerned, the Bar Council framed certain rules governing the standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by the advocates under Section 49 (1)(c) of the Advocates Act. Section 49 deals with General Power of the Bar Council of India to make rules. The rules are framed relating to duty of an advocate to the court, duty to the client, duty to opponent and duty to colleagues. Section 11 relates to the duty of the client. Section 49 deals with General Power of the Bar Council of India to make rules. The rules are framed relating to duty of an advocate to the court, duty to the client, duty to opponent and duty to colleagues. Section 11 relates to the duty of the client. Rule 13 reads as follows: "An advocate shall not accept a brief or appear in a case in which he has reason to believe that he will be a witness, and if he engaged in a case, it becomes apparent that he is a witness on a material question of fact, he should not continue to appear as an advocate if he can retire without jeopardizing his clients interests." 14. The purport of the said rule is that an advocate should not appear to his client in a case where he will be a witness on a material question of fact. If he wants to be a witness on a material question of fact, he shall not appear in the case, jeopardizing his clients interest. 15. Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads as under: "Section 120: Parties to civil suit, and their wives or husbands, Husband or wife of person under criminal trial:- In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be competent witness." 16. As per Section 120 of the Evidence Act, the husband will be a competent witness in a civil suit on behalf of wife and under Order 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure appearances in courts may be made by recognized agent or pleader. Under Order 3 Rule 2 persons holding powers of attorney, are entitled to appear and file applications on behalf of persons who gave them the power of attorney. Under Order 3 Rule 4, the pleader has to be appointed by the party to appear in the Court. Under Order 3 Rule 4, any person can appoint his recognized agent or an advocate or the power of attorney to act on his behalf. In the instant case, P.W.1 0 is not only the husband of the landlady, but also the power of attorney holder and admittedly, he is an advocate. Under Order 3 Rule 4, any person can appoint his recognized agent or an advocate or the power of attorney to act on his behalf. In the instant case, P.W.1 0 is not only the husband of the landlady, but also the power of attorney holder and admittedly, he is an advocate. Therefore, though the tenant relied on a decision in R.K. Agarwal v. Rana Harishchandra Ranjitsingh1 the principle laid down in the said case is not applicable to the facts of this case. In Para 16 of the said judgment, it is stated as follows: "It is pertinent to note that S.120 of the Evidence Act only deals with who may testify as a witness. However, this section does not lay down any restriction or restraint on the advocate to be a witness in the case where he is acting as an advocate." 17. Therefore, even according to the said judgment, I am of the opinion that D.W.1 (sic. P.W.10), who is the husband of the landlady, is the competent witness under Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the restriction imposed in Rule 13 of the Bar Council of India Rules cannot be interpreted in the instant case as that of an advocate to the client. Even otherwise, in the instant case, P.W.10 is no other than the husband of the landlady and therefore a duty cast upon the husband to look after her affairs protecting her interest and can act as a competent witness. Therefore, I am of the opinion that P.W.10 is a competent witness on behalf of his wife and as such, his evidence cannot be excluded or brushed aside and accordingly, the point NO.1 is answered in favour of landlady. 18. Point Nos.2 and 3: The tenant in his counter denied the title of the landlady and stated that there is no relationship of landlady and tenant and EX.P-1 was also disputed and stated that it is not true and valid, but it is a forged document. On the other hand, he has taken a plea that the brother of the landlady inducted him into the premises and he used to pay the rents to M. Govinda Rao and other brothers. Therefore, it cannot be said that the tenant has denied the title of the landlady. The scope of the definition of landlord is very wide. On the other hand, he has taken a plea that the brother of the landlady inducted him into the premises and he used to pay the rents to M. Govinda Rao and other brothers. Therefore, it cannot be said that the tenant has denied the title of the landlady. The scope of the definition of landlord is very wide. Under Section 2(vi) of the Act, "landlord means the owner of a building and includes a person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another person or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant." As the landlord need not be the owner of the building, but if he is authorized to receive the rent, he is also a landlord, landlord means not only the owner of the building but also person, who is entitled to receive the rent. An agent of the landlord also is the landlord. Though, it is not established that the landlady is exclusive owner of the said building, but the undisputed fact is that she is the joint owner having 1/7th share in the entire petition schedule property of her late father, who died intestate. To show her possession before leasing out the said premises in question, she filed bunch of material documents in support of EX.P-1 lease deed and some of the documents are prior to the execution of the lease deed, such as the demand of house tax and adjustment of electricity bills vide EX.P-162 from February, 1987 to January, 1988 and EX.P-163 relates to the adjustment of the electricity bills from February, 1986 to January, 1987. Insofar as lease deed EX.P-1 is concerned, the scribe is examined as P.W.1, attestors are examined as P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 and the Sarpanch of the village was examined as P.W.5 and P.Ws.5 (sic.6) to 8 neighbours stated that the landlady was in possession of the said property. It is also pertinent to note that the house bearing NO.11-269 is connected with the electricity connection No.371 belonging to the landlady. It is also pertinent to note that the house bearing NO.11-269 is connected with the electricity connection No.371 belonging to the landlady. The said premises is abutting to her house, therefore, there is every possibility of occupying the said premises by the landlady, she being the joint owner of the said premises. Therefore, I am of the view that both the courts below rightly recorded a concurrent finding that the landlady was in possession before leasing out the said premises and the said premises was leased out by the landlady only but not by R.W.2 Govinda Rao. There is no evidence to prove that the tenant was inducted by the Govinda Rao. Absolutely no documentary evidence has been filed by the tenant to prove that he was the tenant of R.W.2. To disprove the lease deed Ex.P-1, whether it is a genuine or not, several other questions have been put to the witnesses, which are not relevant. Admittedly, the signature of the tenant on EX.P-1 is not denied. Having taken a plea of forgery, no steps have been taken by the tenant to prove that EX.P-1 document is a forged document. Except the landlady, no other landlord is coming forward claiming the rent and the ownership. Both the courts below having held that the landlady is not the exclusive owner, but rightly recorded the finding that she was in possession of the said premises and she only let out the said premises and EX.P-1 is a valid and true document. In view of the aforesaid concurrent findings, I am of the opinion that the landlady was in possession of the petition schedule property before leasing out the same to the tenant and the possession was given by her only to the tenant under EX.P-1lease deed and therefore, the tenant is bound to pay the rents to the landlady as he was inducted in the said premises by the petitioner-landlady only. Accordingly, points 2 and 3 are answered in favour of the landlady. 19. In view of the afore said concurrent findings and for the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by the courts below and hence the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. 20. Accordingly, points 2 and 3 are answered in favour of the landlady. 19. In view of the afore said concurrent findings and for the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by the courts below and hence the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed. 20. However, the tenant is granted four months time to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the premises in favour of the landlady subject to the condition of the depositing the entire arrears of rent by the end of July 2006. The landlady is entitled to withdraw the rents deposited before the Rent Controller and the future rents that are going to be deposited by the tenant up to October 2006. The tenant shall file an undertaking by the end of July 2006 along with deposit of arrears of rent before the Rent Controller undertaking that he will vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule property to the landlady on or before 31-10-2006. No order as to the costs.