( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 6-7-2000 in RCC ma No. 44 of 1999 passed by the Principal senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, confirming the order dated 27-1-1999 in RCC No. 72 of 1998 passed by the Rent Controller, vijayawada allowing the petition filed by the tenant - first respondent herein, to permit him to deposit the rents in the Court. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the first respondent is tenant of the suit schedule property for a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- payable on or before 5th of the succeeding calendar month and there is a registered lease deed entered into by and between the parties on 10-8-1997 for a period of two years starting from 10-8-1997 to 9-8-1999 and he deposited rs. 10,000/- in advance in favour of smt. Adiseshamma, mother of the appellant herein, which is refundable without interest, on expiry of the lease term at the time of vacating the premises. The petitioner in the RCC was paying the rents regularly to Smt. Adiseshamma, every month and she died on 7-5-1998 and after her death, each of the respondents started claiming rent for themselves and got issued legal notice on 7-6-1998 and 29-5-1998 through their Advocates. Both the respondents in the RCC claimed ownership of the schedule premises and demanded the payment of rents each for themselves and not to pay to the other. ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein through her mother entered into a agreement with the tenant-first respondent herein. On the other hand, the brother of the petitioner herein claimed title to the property by virtue of a registered gift deed. In view of the rival claims by the petitioner and the second respondent, the tenant has filed RCC to allow him to deposit the rents, inasmuch as there was dispute with regard to the ownership between the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent. ( 4 ) ON appreciation of the facts and circumstances, since the 2nd respondent therein remained ex parte in the Trial Court, and he has also not filed the alleged gift deed, it came to the conclusion that since the dispute is with regard to the ownership of suit schedule property, therefore, the tenant is entitled to deposit the rents into the Court till the dispute between inter se the 2nd respondent and the petitioner herein resolved by a competent civil Court. ( 5 ) THE above order was carried in appeal before the Principal Senior Civil judge, Vijayawada, in RCC MA No. 44 of 1999 contending that the second respondent-brother of the petitioner herein remained ex parte and since he did not file the registered gift deed instead of drawing an adverse inference that the second respondent herein has no title to the suit schedule property and the alleged registered gift deed is not existing, has erroneously confirmed the order of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED of the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner herein has contended that as admitted by the first respondent, there is a agreement between mother of the petitioner and himself, therefore, the petitioner is the owner of the suit schedule property and the second respondent in collusion with the tenant and the tenant with a view to continue tenancy filed the petition raising dispute of ownership with regard to the suit schedule property. Without appreciating the contention of the petitioner that the second respondent remained ex parte, he has not filed the registered gift deed and instead of drawing an adverse inference, confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and sought interference of this Court. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopal krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and others, wherein their Lordships considered the effect of Sec. 114 (g) and Sec. 103 of the evidence Act held that a party in possession of best evidence, which would throw light on the issue in controversy and withholding it, the Court shall draw an adverse inference against him and he cannot rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon to produce it ( 8 ) APPLYING the ratio laid down in the above case to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand though the second respondent was made party to the proceedings, he remained ex parte and has abstained from producing the alleged gift deed, under which he is said to have been gifted the property. That apart, he has issued notice to the first respondent to pay the rent to him based on the alleged gift deed. That apart, he has issued notice to the first respondent to pay the rent to him based on the alleged gift deed. Therefore, the appellate Court below instead of drawing an adverse inference against the second respondent, has confirmed the order of the trial Court. He appears to have been carried away by the appreciation of the facts and circumstances without having regard to the legal proposition and the defence put up by the appellant therein. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I hold that the Courts below have committed an irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs. ( 10 ) THE petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited in the court below by the first respondent herein.