P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. ( 2 ) THE unsuccessful landlord in both the Courts below is the revision petitioner. The respective pleadings of the parties are as follows: ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner, in precise, that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the tiled house bearing Assessment No. 2214 situated at Palakonda. The respondent is the younger brother of the petitioner. At the time of the partition of the properties of the petitioner and his brothers, the respondent was allotted two roomed thatched house and vacant site on the northern row of petition schedule house and prior to 1974 as the respondent has no dwelling house the petitioner has leased out the petition schedule house at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- to be paid by 1st of every succeeding month. About 10 years back on account of the general increase in the value of houses and price, the respondent has agreed to payment at the rate of Rs. 250/- for month and used to pay as such till 4 years back and obtained receipts from the petitioner to that fact. On account of some differences between the petitioner, the respondent and his father-in-law the respondent wilfully failed to pay the rents despite the repeated demands by the petitioner. The petitioner got issued a registered notice dated 4-2-1991 demanding the arrears of rent and to vacate the petition of rents. The respondent has sent reply dated 25-2-1991 with false and frivolous allegations while admitting the title of the petitioner, ( 4 ) THE respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the eviction petition and disputing the landlord and tenant relationship, but admitting that he has no dwelling house of his own for separate residence. It was further averred that the petitioner is the elder brother of the respondent and one Kalivarapu Appanna, Kalivarapu Krishnamurthy are also his brothers. The joint family got 3 tiled residential houses and vacant site which is referred in this petition as purchased a house in the name of his wife in Komatipeta and he shifted to that house. The respondent and his mother used to live jointly with the petitioner since there is no tiled house to them. The joint family got 3 tiled residential houses and vacant site which is referred in this petition as purchased a house in the name of his wife in Komatipeta and he shifted to that house. The respondent and his mother used to live jointly with the petitioner since there is no tiled house to them. The petitioner promised that he would construct a tiled house in the vacant site and till then he asked the respondent to live in the Southern side of the petition schedule house and as such the respondent is living therein as a joint owner but not as a tenant. The respondent got the electrical power supply connection in his name to the suit house and he never asked the petitioner to lease the suit house. The petitioner did not construct tiled house as promised and there is no landlord and tenant relationship in between the parties. ( 5 ) THE petitioner had examined himself as PW1 and had examined one Ananda Rao as PW2 and Exs. Al to A6 were marked. The respondent examined himself as RW1 and his brother Laxman Rao as RW2 and Exs. Bl to B4 were marked. The learned Rent Controller, Palakonda had dismissed RCC No. 1/91 by an order dated 16-9-1998 on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and the thatched houses, besides landed properties, cash and jewelleries. The petitioner became the manager of the joint family on the demise of his father and among the brothers the petitioner, Kalivarapu Appamma, Sriramamurthy and Laxmanarao were married by that time. The petitioner retained the suit schedule house and his Eastern side tiled house is given to Kalivarapu Appanna for his residence and the house on further East was given to Kalivarapu Sriramamurthy and tiled house in the opposite row was given to the Kalivarapu Laxmanarao for their separate residence. By the time of the the allotment of the residential houses by the petitioner their mother is alive and this respondent and his another brother Krishnamurthy are very young and they used to live joint with the petitioner in the petition schedule house along with mother, Kalivarapu Laxmanarao dismantled his old tiled house allotted to him and constructed two slabbed houses. It all happened prior to 1961. It all happened prior to 1961. The petitioner as a manager of the joint family performed the marriage of Krishnamurthy and after his marriage there arose some difference between the wives of petitioner and Krishnamurthy and so Krishnamurthy possession of the alleged tenant who is none other than the brother of the petitioner, at the best is permissive possession. The learned Rent Controller had disbelieved the evidence of PW2 who had supported PW1 to prove the aspect of tenancy. In fact, the learned Rent Controller at paragraphs 8 to 13 had appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in detail and especially in the light of the evidence of the respondent as RW1 coupled with the evidence of RW2 and several probabilities recorded had arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish the tenancy and the possession of the respondent at the best can be termed as permissive possession. The landlord aggrieved by the said order in RCC No. 1/91 had preferred CMA No. 4/99 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam and the appellate authority also had dismissed the appeal on the main ground that the appellant therein was unable to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent and aggrieved by the said, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. ( 6 ) MS. Rajani, representing Sri Hemendranath Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had strenuously contended that the mere fact that the revision petitioner and the respondent are brothers by itself is not a ground to disbelieve the tenancy. The learned Counsel also had stressed on the evidence of PW2 who is an independent witness and had contended that the Courts below had totally erred in ignoring the evidence of PW2. ( 7 ) ON the contrary, the learned Counsel for the respondent had contended that both the Courts on appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the possession of the respondent at the best can be termed as permissive possession and the eviction petition under the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act is a misconceived remedy. ( 8 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that though PW2 was examined for the purpose of proving the tenancy, it was disbelieved by both the Courts below. ( 8 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that though PW2 was examined for the purpose of proving the tenancy, it was disbelieved by both the Courts below. Apart from it, RW2 was examined on behalf of the respondent who is the brother of both the revision petitioner and also the respondent. The evidence of RW1 and RW2 had been well-considered and both the Courts below on appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence had arrived at the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant itself had not been established. Unless the relationship of landlord and tenant is established, eviction petition under the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 cannot be maintained and the remedy, if any, will be elsewhere, Ms. Rajam, however had contended that in the event of dismissing the revision, liberty can be given to the revision petitioner to institute a suit. But, I do not think that it is necessary to give any liberty to any party to institute a suit since every person has an inherent right to bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by statute, one may at ones peril bring a suit of ones choice. In fact, this was the view expressed in Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1974 SC 1126 . In the light of the above ratio, I do not think that there is necessity to give any liberty. In the facts and circumstances, the civil revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. But the revision petitioner is at liberty to institute a civil suit for appropriate remedies, if he is so advised in this regard. In view of the relationship between the parties, no order as to costs.