1. ' Appellant above named, being aggrieved by judgment dated 27th March, 1979, passed by Ilnd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, by which appellant's Rent Appeal No,214/78 was dismissed and the order dated 30th May, 1978 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hula, in Rent Application No,3/77 was confirmed, has preferred the above appeal, on the following facts and grounds:- ' Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated are that the respondent filed an application No,3 of 1977 before the Rent Controller, Hale, wherein it was alleged, that the respondent is the owner of property bearing No,B/24 at Matriari, Taluka Hata and that the same was given on rent to the appellant in October, 1974 at the rent of Rs,200 per month only and that the tenancy was oral.
2. ' That the respondent alleged, that the appellant paid the rent up to December, 1974 and thereafter stopped payment. That after two months of the default the appellant approached the respondent and offered to purchase the property from the respondent for a consideration of Rs,28,000 only and also agreed to adjust all the arrears of rent at the time of registration of sale-deed, which was to take place within a period of six months only. The respondent alleged, that thereafter the appellant did not turn up at all and hence the respondent filed the said application on 20-1-1977.
3. ' That the appellant filed the written objections and contended, that he is not the tenant of respondent and he never took the said property on rent from the respondent. The appellant stated, that he had entered into an agreement dated 30-8-1975 with the respondent and his brother Haji Riazuddin for the purchase of their properties (case properties in Applications Nos.2 and 3 of 1977) for a consideration of Rs,28,000 only and out of the consideration a sum of Rs,14,000 was already paid to them and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration of sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar. The appellant alleged that the rent application was filed just to grab his money and that he was in possession of the properties in part performance of the contract for sale.
4. ' That in view of the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the preliminary issue about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
5. ' That both the parties led evidence in the case. The respondent did not examine himself, but examined his witnesses Zafar Ahmad and Akhtar Hussain. Appellant examined himself and his witness Ghulam Hussain. He also produced the agreement for sale in original. The learned Rent Controller however came to conclusion, that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and he further directed the ejectment of appellant outright, vide his order dated 30-5- 1978, hence appeal was filed before the District Judge, Hyderabad. The appellant also filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the respondent, which is now pending in the Court of IInd Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. The said appeal was ultimately heard by the learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad and he also dismissed the same on 27-3-1979 and hence this appeal is filed.
6. ' The learned Advocate for the appellant in support of the above appeal submitted as under:
(a) That there is no evidence on record at all to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and consequently orders of both the learned lower Courts cannot legally be sustained.
(b) That respondent himself did not come into witness-box although it is alleged, that it was the respondent who actually rented out the premises in question to the appellant and as such the re pendent failed to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In support of the above contentions the learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon cases reported in 1982 CLC 954, AIR 1938 P C 40 and AIR 1927 PC 230.
7. ' The learned Advocate for the respondent on the other hand submitted as under:-
(a) That the concurrent findings of facts given by both the learned lower Courts cannot be disturbed in the above second appeal.
(b) That respondent by examining P.W. Akhtar Hussain his son and attorney has established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and as such the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant, that there is no evidence on record in this connection is not tenable.
8. ' In support of the above contentions the learned Advocate for the respondent relied upon cases reported in PLD 1965 Kar. 307 and NLR 1978 Civil 644.
9. ' I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the record and proceedings of the learned trial Court and both the orders of the learned lower Courts as well as cases cited by the learned Advocates for the parties.
10. I have carefully gone through the statement of witnesses examined by both the parties, before the learned trial Court as well as through both the judgments of the learned lower Courts. No doubt respondent himself did not go into witness-box, but his son and duly constituted attorney was examined before the learned trial Court, who stated the possession of the disputed premises was handed over to appellant on account of oral tenancy agreement, in his presence. Both the learned trial Courts have duly appraised the statements of witnesses examined before the learned trial Court and thereafter for cogent reasons came to the conclusion, that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This is concurrent finding of fact, given by both the learned lower Courts, on the appraisal of statements of witnesses examined before the learned Rent Controller and as such I see no reason to interfere with said concurrent finding of fact, in this second appeal. The cases cited by the learned Advocate for appellant are based on different facts and as such not applicable to the facts of present case at all.
11. ' Therefore I find no merits in above appeal which is consequently dismissed with cost.