ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called in short “Rent Control Act”) against the Orders passed R.C.A. 3 of 2011, dated 10.11.2014 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Tribunal-cum-Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein and whereby learned appellate Judge allowed appeal filed by the respondent/tenant setting aside the orders passed by learned Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, in R.C.C.No.4 of 2006, dated 01.04.2011 and dismissed eviction petition filed by the appellant. 2. The revision petitioner filed R.C.C.No.4 of 2006 in respect of thatched house bearing D.No.8-12-4 in Vizianagaram Town. The revision petitioner filed petition against the respondent before the Rent Controller under Section 10 (ii) and (iii) of Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property on the ground of willful default and bona fide requirement stating that he is landlord of petition schedule thatched house along with vacant site bearing D.No.8-12-4, in T.S.No.1073/C.1 situated in lower tank bund road in Santhapet, South ward, Vizianagaram. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent approached his father Mr.P.Suryanarayana in the month of March, 1995 and requested him to let out the petition schedule house for a period of 11 months which he needed it for his residence and also for doing business in cement ventilators which agreed by the father of the petitioner and let out house and vacant site to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-, which has to be paid on the first day of every succeeding English Calendar month and the tenancy was oral for a period of 11 months from April, 1995. The petitioner submits that it was also agreed between his father and the respondent that the respondent should not cause any acts of waste or damage and no major or minor repairs should be executed without permission of his father which agreed by the respondent and took the thatched house along with vacant site on lease. The petitioner submits that it was also agreed between his father and the respondent that the respondent should not cause any acts of waste or damage and no major or minor repairs should be executed without permission of his father which agreed by the respondent and took the thatched house along with vacant site on lease. The petitioner alleged that the respondent has not paid the rents regularly due to that his father demanded the respondent to vacate from petition schedule property and after expiry of lease period of 11 months when his father asked the respondent to vacate from petition schedule property, who told him that he did not get a suitable accommodation and prolonged the matter till the end of the year, 2002 and thereafter when father of the petitioner asked the respondent to vacate petition schedule property and hand over vacant possession and then the respondent filed suit in O.S.No.59 of 2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, seeking permanent injunction wherein he obtained ex parte decree as father of the petitioner said to be fell ill and not contested the suit and thereafter he died. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he became absolute owner of the property as plaint schedule property fell to his share in oral partition with his family members and filed petition for eviction of the respondent from the petition schedule property. The respondent/tenant filed written statement before Rent Controller denying averments in the petition filed by the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that he took the petition schedule property on lease from the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- under on oral lease in the year, 1995 and since then he has been regularly paying the rents every month to the father of the petitioner but the father of the petitioner was not in the habit of issuing receipts for the rents paid by him. He alleged that due to escalation of prices of immovable properties in petition schedule locality, the father of the petitioner openly proclaimed that he will evict him from the petition schedule property by using criminal force due to that he filed O.S.No.59 of 2003 seeking permanent injunction and got a decree which not challenged by father of the petitioner by filing any appeal. 3. 3. The main contention of the respondent is that one Mr.Lanka Seethayya issued a notice to him stating that he purchased petition schedule property from Mr.K.Appala Narasayya under a registered sale deed dated 22.08.2005 for a valuable consideration and he demanded him to pay the rents every month regularly and thereafter he approached the petitioner and his family members enquired about the right, title, interest or possession over the petition schedule property, who informed that originally, the petition schedule property belongs to Penumatsa Seetharama Raju, who sold the same to Mr.K.Appala Narasayya under a registered sale deed dated 31.03.1969 and family members of the petitioner represented to him that they are noway concerned with the petition schedule property and directed him to pay monthly rents regularly to Mr.Lanka Seethayya and accordingly he has been paying rents regularly to Mr.Lanka Seethayya. The respondent submit that he never committed any willful default in paying rents either to the father of the petitioner or to the family members of the petitioner or to Mr.Lanka Seethayya and there is no landlord and tenant relationship in between himself and the petitioner due to that provisions of Rent Control Act are not applicable to the case. He prays to dismiss the petition. 4. On behalf of petitioner, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked. On behalf of respondent, RW.1 was examined Ex.B.1 marked. The learned rent controller after hearing both sides allowed the petition and ordered for eviction of the respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the findings of the Rent Controller, the respondent/tenant preferred R.C.A.No.3 of 2011 which allowed by appellate Judge mainly on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to prove oral partition between family members and he also having another shop room due to that he does not require the petition schedule building for doing business and he cannot convert the petition schedule shop room into non residential from residential premises and there is no pleading with regard to denial of title of landlord. 6. Aggrieved by the orders of appellate Judge, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that orders of the Court below is contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence and probabilities of the case. 6. Aggrieved by the orders of appellate Judge, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that orders of the Court below is contrary to law and against the weight of the evidence and probabilities of the case. He submits that appellate Court failed to consider that there is landlord and tenant relationship existing between the parties to the proceedings and appellate Court erred in holding that tenancy was with the father of the petitioner. He prays to allow the revision petition. 7. I have heard both sides. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.R.Sreekanth for the revision petitioner as well as learned counsel Mr.Saranu Phani Teja representing Mr.G.Venkateswara Rao learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that originally father of the petitioner was landlord and after the death of father petitioner being a son became landlord as petition schedule property fell to his share in family oral partition. He submits that learned appellate Judge failed to consider purport of Section 2 (vi) of Rent Control Act and erroneously came to conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He would further submit that denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent/tenant is not bona fide, who also failed to produce any document to show that property purchased by the persons which he mentioned in the written statement and said Mr.Lanka Seethayya, who alleged to have been issued notice also not examined on behalf of the respondent. He argued that the petitioner denying title of landlord illegally denied title of the landlord having admitted original tenancy with the father of the petitioner scatting on in the petition schedule property without paying rents since 27 years. He would further submit that when the respondent has got any doubt with regard to ownership of petition schedule property, he has to invoke Section 8 of Rent Control Act and failed to do so and kept quite without paying rents and continuing in illegal possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property. He prays to allow the revision petition. 10. He would further submit that when the respondent has got any doubt with regard to ownership of petition schedule property, he has to invoke Section 8 of Rent Control Act and failed to do so and kept quite without paying rents and continuing in illegal possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property. He prays to allow the revision petition. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as one Mr.Lanka Seethayya issued notice to the respondent claiming ownership and as per the advice of family members of the petitioner, he paid rents to Mr.Lanka Seethayya and receipts also filed to support his contention, which are marked as Ex.B.1 before Rent Controller. He would further submit that Section 8 of Rent Control Act is not mandatory and learned appellate Judge rightly held that petitioner failed to prove oral partition due to that he cannot claim that he is the landlord of petition schedule property. He relied on decision in M.Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner Vs. Smt.K.V.Subbamma (died) and Others … Respondents 1978 (1) ALT 503 A.P wherein this Court held that Section 8 of Rent Controller Act is procedure prescribed by or the consecutive steps mentioned in Section 8 of the Act are not mandatory and it cannot be stated as a rule of law that wherever the procedure or the steps mentioned therein are not followed, it must be concluded that the tenant is guilty of willful default. It is held that even though the procedure under Section 8 is not followed, there may be other circumstances which negative the inference of willful default. He prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is:- “Whether the Order under challenge is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this court under Section 22 of Rent Control Act?” POINT:- 12. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to extract Section 10 and 22 of Rent Control Act, which reads as under:- “10. Eviction of tenants:. Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to extract Section 10 and 22 of Rent Control Act, which reads as under:- “10. Eviction of tenants:. - (1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this Section or Sections 12 and 13: Provided that where the tenant, denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied: (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; or (ii) that the tenant has, in the Andhra area, after the 23rd October, 1945, and in the Telangana area after the commencement of the Hyderabad House Rent Control Order of 1353 Fasli, without the written consent of the landlord: (a) transferred his right under the lease or sub-let, the entire building or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so; or (b) used the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased; or (iii) that the tenant has committed such acts of waste as are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building; or (iv) that the tenant has been guilty of such acts and conduct which are a nuisance to the occupiers of other portions in the same building or buildings in the neighbourhood; or (v) that the tenant has secured alternative building or ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause; or (vi) that the tenant has denied the title of the landlord or claimed a right of permanent tenancy and that such denial or claim was not bona fide. The Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application: Provided that in any case falling under clause (i), if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender the rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything in Section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected. (3) (a) A landlord may subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building: (i) in case it is a residential building: (a) if the landlord is not occupying a residential building of his own in the city, town or village concerned and he requires it for his own occupation; (b) if the landlord who has more buildings than one in the city, town or village concerned is in occupation of one such building and he bona fide requires another building instead, for his own occupation; (ii) in case it is a non-residential building which is used for the purpose of keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use, if the landlord requires it for his own use and if he is not occupying any such building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise; (iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord is not occupying a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own or to the possession of which he is entitled whether under this Act or otherwise: (a) for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, on the date of the application; or (b) for the purpose of a business which in the opinion of the Controller, the landlord bona fide proposes to commence: Provided that a person who becomes a landlord after the commencement of the tenancy by an instrument inter vivos shall not be entitled to apply under this clause before the expiry of three months from the date on which the instrument was registered: Provided further that, where a landlord has obtained possession of a building under this clause he shall not be entitled to apply again under this Clause: (i) in case he has obtained possession of a residential building, for possession of another residential building of his own; (ii) in case he has obtained possession of a non-residential building, for possession of another non-residential building of his own. (b) Where the landlord of a building, whether residential or non-residential, is a religious, charitable, educational or other public institution, it may, if the building is required for the purposes of the institution, apply to the Controller, subject to the provisions of clause (a) for an order directing the tenant to put the institution in possession of the building. (c) A landlord who is occupying only apart of a building, whether residential or non-residential may, notwithstanding anything in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for the purpose of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be. (d) Where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-section before the expiry of such period. (e) The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bona fide, makes an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application: Provided that, in the case of an application under clause (c), the Controller shall reject the application if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to landlord: Provided further that, the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time for putting the landlord in possession of the building and may extend such time so as not to exceed three months in the aggregate. (4) No order for eviction shall be passed under sub-section (3): (i) against any tenant who is engaged in any employment or class of employment notified by the Government as an essential service for the purposes of this sub-section unless the landlord is himself engaged in any employment or class of employment which has been so notified; or (ii) in respect of any building which has been left for use as an educational institution and is actually being used as such, provided that the institution has been recognised by the Government or any authority empowered by them in this behalf, so long as such recognition continues. (5)(a) Where a landlord who has obtained possession of a building in pursuance of an order under sub-section (3) does not himself occupy it and for the purpose specified in the order within one month of the date of obtaining possession, or having so occupied it, vacates it without reasonable cause within six months of such date, the tenant who has been evicted may apply to the Controller for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of the building and the Controller shall make an order accordingly notwithstanding anything in Section 3. (b) Where a tenant who is entitled to apply for possession under clause (a) fails to do so within one month from the date on which the right to make the application accrued to him, the Government or the authorised officer shall have power, if the building is required for any of the purposes, or for occupation by any of the officers specified in sub-section (3) of that section, to give intimation to the landlord that the building is so required, and thereupon the provisions of sub-sections (6) and (8) of Section 3 shall apply to the building: Provided that this clause shall not apply to a residential building the monthly rent of which does not exceed twenty five rupees or to a non-residential building the monthly rent of which does not exceed fifty rupees. (6) Where the Controller is satisfied that any application made by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant is frivolous or vexatious, the Controller may direct that compensation, not exceeding fifty rupees be paid by such landlord or the tenant. (6) Where the Controller is satisfied that any application made by a landlord for the eviction of a tenant is frivolous or vexatious, the Controller may direct that compensation, not exceeding fifty rupees be paid by such landlord or the tenant. (7) When an application under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) for evicting a tenant has been rejected by the Controller, the tenancy shall, subject to the provisions of this Act be deemed to continue on the same terms and conditions as before and shall not be terminable by the landlord except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3). (8) Notwithstanding anything in this Section, no person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the landlord, be entitled to apply for the eviction of a tenant”. “22. Revision:. - (1) The High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceeding taken under this Act by the Controller in execution under Section 15 or by the appellate authority on appeal under Section 20, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or of propriety of such order or proceeding, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. (2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings, before the High Court under sub-section (1), shall be in its discretion.” 13. Though the revision jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act is not wide as appellate jurisdiction, but wider than jurisdiction under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. When finding of the Rent Controller is set aside by the appellate authority, this Court while by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 22 of Rent Control Act as to consider whether findings of the appellate Judge suffers from any inherent defect or are based on inadmissible or are irrelevant materials or are perverse. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act though cannot re-appreciate evidence can examine whether any inadmissible or irrelevant material is taken into consideration by the Court below. 14. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act though cannot re-appreciate evidence can examine whether any inadmissible or irrelevant material is taken into consideration by the Court below. 14. On perusal of orders passed by Rent Controller in R.C.C.No.4 of 2006 which shows that petitioner has filed petition under Section 10 (ii) and (iii) of the Rent Control act which provision is in respect of seeking eviction two grounds which are mentioned in (a) (b). The provisions of Section 10 (iii) pertaining to seeking eviction on the ground that the tenant has committed acts of waste and reduced value of utility of the building. The contents of the petition which discussed by Rent Controller shows that the petitioners sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of willful default, and bond fide requirement, which grounds have to be sought as per Section 10 (2) (i) and 3 (a) (i) of Rent Control Act. But it is settled law that quoting wrong provision of law is not a ground to reject the contention of the petitioner in toto and Courts have to consider the contents in the petition filed by the petitioner. As per contents of the petition which discussed by the Rent Controller in its order which shows that the petitioner alleged that the respondent failed to pay rents to his father or to himself since the year 1995, for which, the contention of the respondent is that he has been paying rents to the father of the petitioner and thereafter to family members of the petitioner and then to one Mr.Lanka Seethayya, who issued notice claiming ownership of petition schedule property. It is not in dispute that the respondent has taken the petition schedule property on oral lease from the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- in April, 1995 onwards and the petitioner herein is son of the landlord. It is not in dispute that the respondent has taken the petition schedule property on oral lease from the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.300/- in April, 1995 onwards and the petitioner herein is son of the landlord. Now it would be beneficial to extract Section 2 (vi) of Rent Control Act, which reads as under:- “(vi) '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. Explanation: A tenant who sub-lets a building shall be deemed to be a landlord within the meaning of this Act in relation to the subtenant;” 15. On perusal of above referred definition of landlord in the Rent Control Act which covers not only the owner of the building and also the person, who is receiving the rents are entitled to receive the rent on his behalf or on behalf of another person. It is exhaustive definition which includes agent, who is collecting rents on behalf of owner of the building, it is also comes under the definition of the landlord. 16. The contention of the respondent is that as father of the petitioner tried to forcibly evict him, he filed suit for permanent injunction and obtained ex parte decree and he also pleaded that he never committed any willful default in paying the rents either to the father of the petitioner or to the family members of the petitioner or to Mr.Lanka Seethayya. When the respondent himself contended that he never committed default in paying rents to family members of the petitioner, he cannot deny that the petitioner is not a landlord when petitioner is admittedly son of original owner of the petition schedule property from whom the respondent admittedly has taken the property on oral lease. When the respondent himself contended that he never committed default in paying rents to family members of the petitioner, he cannot deny that the petitioner is not a landlord when petitioner is admittedly son of original owner of the petition schedule property from whom the respondent admittedly has taken the property on oral lease. Learned appellate Judge gave much importance on landlord and tenant relationship without considering the fact that the petitioner is no other than son of original landlord and the petitioner also examined his brother as PW.3, who supported the contention of the petitioner with regard to oral partition between the family members wherein the petition schedule property fell to the share of the petitioner. The trial Judge rightly considered the said aspect and learned appellate Judge repeating the grounds of appeal pleadings and came to erroneous conclusion that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The said finding of the appellate Judge is perverse and not in accordance with provisions of Rent Control Act, which needs to be set aside. The respondent, who pleaded that one Mr.Lanka Seethayya issued notice claiming ownership of petition schedule property and then he also approached petitioner and his family members which also shows that the respondent is aware about death of original owner of the property then only he had approached family of the petitioner and said to be paid rents to Mr.Lanka Seethayya and produced Ex.B.1 bunch of receipts. It is pertinent to note that the respondent not examined the said Mr.Lanka Seethayya to prove his contention and he has also not adduced any other oral evidence except his interest testimony as RW.1. The receipts (Ex.B.1) which he produced said to be issued by Mr.Lanka Seethayya which denied by the petitioner and burden is on the respondent to prove that he has been paying rents regularly to the father of the petitioner or to the petitioner’s family members or to Mr.Lanka Seethayya as filing documents and marking the same is not amounts to proof of contents the same. Learned Rent Controller rightly held that the respondent not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary and not examined Mr.Lanka Seethayya to whom he allegedly paying rents under Ex.B.1 and when the petitioner denied the existence of any such person in the name of Mr.Lanka Seethayya, it is for the respondent to examine the said Mr.Lanka Seetha whom he said to be paid rents in respect of petition schedule property. It is not the contention of the respondent that he has been paying rents to the petitioner or any one of the family members of the petitioner. This Court in K.Afsarunnisa Begum … Appellants Vs. K.Anasuya …Respondent in C.R.P.No.1877 of 2005 Order dated 14.03.2006 explained the willful default and held that Rent Control Legislation cannot said to be a beneficiary Legislation only in favour of tenants, interest of landlord may have to be taken into consideration while interpreting statutory provisions. It is also explained that mere default always may not amount to willful default unless there is supine indifference or it is something deliberate, intentional and conscious. When the commission of default is not in controversy, the explanation to be given definitely would be on the tenants to satisfy the conscious of the Court that the default committed during the relevant period will not fall under the expression “willful”. The question is whether the tenants have been successful in discharging the same. 17. In the present case also the respondent having admitted original lease with father of the petitioner pleaded that Mr.Lanka Seethayya issued notice to him claiming ownership which notice he failed to file either before Rent Controller or before appellate authority and not examined said Mr.Lanka Seethayya to prove Ex.B.1 receipts. It is also not the contention of the respondent that he had paid rents to family members of the petitioner and obtained receipt after death of original landlord. It is also not the contention of the respondent that he had paid rents to family members of the petitioner and obtained receipt after death of original landlord. Further it is not the contention of the respondent that he has been paying rents to said Mr.Lanka Seethayya during the pendency of Rent Controller proceedings and not taken any steps to deposit at least agreed rent before Rent Controller during the pendency of proceedings, which supports the contention of the petitioner that denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent is not bona fide one which needs no pleading on the part of the petitioner as the petitioner may not have knowledge at the time of filing petition that the respondent may plead that Mr.Lanka Seethayya claimed title of petition schedule property. Learned appellate Judge failed to consider the said aspect and came to erroneous conclusion that there is no pleading with regard to bona fide requirement. The respondent also failed to prove that Mr.Lanka Seethayya claimed ownership in respect of petition schedule property due to that he has not paid rents either to the petitioner or to the any one of the family members of the original landlord. Thereby default in payment of rent committed by the respondent is amounts to willful default which entitled the petitioner to seek eviction on that ground also. It is no doubt true that this Court in M.Venkateswara Rao Vs. Smt.K.V.Subbamma (died) and Others case relied on by learned counsel for the respondent held that Section 8 is not mandatory but still when the respondent admitted that original lease from father of the petitioner and when some third person came and claimed ownership he is bound to invoke Section 8 of Rent Control Act by depositing rents at least even during the pendency of proceedings which he failed to do so. The petitioner able to prove that he is a landlord entitled to seek eviction on the ground of willful default, bona fide requirement and also on the ground that denial of title of the landlord by the respondent is not a bona fide one. Learned Rent Controller also discussed ration laid down of this Court in Sree Datta Agencies Vs. The petitioner able to prove that he is a landlord entitled to seek eviction on the ground of willful default, bona fide requirement and also on the ground that denial of title of the landlord by the respondent is not a bona fide one. Learned Rent Controller also discussed ration laid down of this Court in Sree Datta Agencies Vs. Dinesh Kumar Kucherla 2008 (5) ALT Page 400 wherein it is held that denial of title of the landlord should be bona fide when it is not a bona fide, it is a ground for eviction. Learned appellate Judge failed to consider well reasoned Judgment of Rent Controller and came to erroneous conclusion and dismissed eviction petition filed by the petitioner by allowing the appeal. As appellate Judge failed to consider relevant material and findings of appellate Judge are based on irrelevant material which warrants interference of this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. 18. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with costs throughout. The respondent shall vacate from petition schedule property on or before 31.12.2022 and hand over vacant possession to the petitioner, failing which, the petitioner shall take the possession of the petition schedule property through process of the Court. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. The interim stay if any granted is stand vacated.