P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THESE civil revision petitions are filed by the unsuccessful tenants. Though the matters had been disposed of in certain batches, the questions of fact and questions of law involved in all these matters are substantially the same and hence all these matters are being disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioners-tenants had entertained a doubt relating to the persons claiming rents and hence 71 tenants filed G. R. No. 2038 of 1973 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vizianagaram under Section 9 (3) of A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter in short called as "act". The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the same on 15-6-1973 and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority in CMA No. 90 of 1973 and aggrieved by the same Civil Revision Petition 2451 of 1976 was filed and the revision was allowed on 13-3-1978 directing the Rent Controller to number the RCC and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. Consequent thereupon, the proceedings was numbered as RCC No. 46 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vizianagaram and the same was allowed on 26-7-1988 directing the petitioners therein i. e. , the tenants to pay the rents to the respondents who will issue the receipts similar to Exs. B6 and B10. The landlords had preferred RCA No. 29 of 1988 on the file of appellate authority and the same was dismissed on 30-3-1998 directing the tenants to pay rents to appellants 2 and 3 therein and aggrieved by the same the landlords had carried the matter to this Court in CRP No. 2935 of 1998 and the same was disposed of on 19-8-1999 confirming the finding of the Courts below with certain directions to the appellate authority. This Court while disposing of the said civil revision petition had observed:"i accordingly direct that the learned Subordinate Judge may dispose of the appeals on their own merits without being influenced in any manner by the findings in these proceedings under Section 9 (3) of the Act and also by the fact that the rents are being deposited by the tenants into Court in the above circumstances. "however, since such directions were felt to be not in accordance with law, Review CMP No. 27471 of 1999 was filed in CRP No. 2935 of 1998 and on 23-12-1999 this Court had clarified the direction to the following effect:-"the learned Subordinate Judge shall be at liberty to dispose of the appeals on their own merits taking into consideration the orders, proceedings and other relevant material according to law. "the landlords in the meanwhile had filed several eviction petitions against the tenants on the ground of willful default of payment of rents from 1-4-1973 to 1-1-1976 and also on the ground of denial of title and these matters were carried in appeals as against the orders of the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority had disposed of these matters in certain batches as referred supra and aggrieved by the said orders of eviction, the present civil revision petitions are preferred. However, in view of the pendency of CRP No. 2935 of 1998, a petition was filed by the landlords themselves for stay of hearing of the appeals. The appellate authority had disposed of the appeals as stated supra without taking into consideration the findings recorded in the prior proceedings and also the order passed in the review petition and as already stated supra, aggrieved by the orders of eviction made in these proceedings, the tenants had preferred these batch of civil revision petitions involving common question of law and common questions of law. However, the revision petitioners-tenants filed CMP No. 19626 of 2001 in CRP No. 2262 of 2000 requesting this Court to receive the certified copy of the ledger extract, as additional evidence for the purpose of better appreciation of the facts of the case. ( 3 ) SRI T. Veerabhadrayya, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners-tenants in these batch of revisions had strenuously contended that there was a bona fide doubt entertained by the tenants consequent upon which they had initiated prior proceedings and clear findings had been recorded between the same parties in the prior proceedings which are binding on the parties and hence there is no question of ordering eviction at all. The learned Counsel also had further submitted that inasmuch as the pleadings are common and also the grounds raised are common and the matters also are also substantially the same and the questions of fact and the questions of law involved also are common, all these batch civil revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order. The learned Counsel also had brought to my notice that there are no arrears at all as on today. The learned Counsel had pointed out that the findings of the appellate authority are totally contrary to the findings which had been recorded in the prior proceedings. The learned Counsel had taken me through the pleadings and also the evidence and had also pointed out that none of the parties concerned with the proceedings had been examined on behalf of the landlords. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the findings which had been recorded in the prior proceedings. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on Vinukonda Venkata Ramana and Ors. v. Mootha Venkateswara Rao, 2001 (6) ALD 27 = 2001 (5) ALT 479 (FB) and also Tammana Ramesh Babu v. Allah Bux, 1998 (3) ALD 685 = 1998 (3) ALT 607 . ( 4 ) SRI Lohita, the learned Counsel for the respondents-landlords in all these matters had strenuously contended that the orders. of eviction made are in accordance with law and in fact both the grounds of willful default and denial of title had been specifically pleaded though denial of title had not been discussed by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Counsel also had pointed out Section 9 (3) of the Act has no application and the tenants had not resorted to Section 8 of the Act at all. The learned, Counsel had contended that Order 41, Rule 27 CPC is not applicable to rent control proceedings and hence the additional evidence cannot be received. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to the definition of landlord and had drawn my attention to the judgment in a similar case in CRP No. 2725 of 1998 which was carried to Supreme Court and the special feave also was dismissed and also the judgment in SA No. 217 of 1995 on the file of this Honourable Court. ( 5 ) IN CMP No. 19626 of 2001 filed in CRP No. 2262 of 2000, a request was made for receiving the certified copy of the ledger extract as additional evidence in the revision. In the decision referred (supra), a Full Bench of this Court had observed that there is no bar for taking additional evidence in revision under the Act, Hence in the light of the facts and circumstances, CMP No. 19626 of 2001 is allowed. ( 6 ) AS can be seen from the material available on record and in view of the facts and circumstances and several transactions it is but natural that the tenants will entertain a bona fide doubt and had invoked Section 9 (3) of the Act. No doubt an attempt was made by Sri Lohita that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 9 (3) of the Act cannot be invoked at all. But in the present proceedings, the parties had fought the litigation and several findings had been recorded in this regard, which cannot be totally ignored, especially in the light of the modification made by this Court in Review CMP No. 27471 of 1999. I had carefully gone through the impugned orders made in the appeals against which the present batch civil revision petitions had been preferred and the appellate authority who is expected to consider the findings recorded in the prior proceedings had not considered those aspects at all. It may be true that in one such cases, CRP No. 2725 of 1998 might have been decided and as against that special leave also might have been filed and dismissed. In the said civil revision petition also, except a reference to the proceedings, the legal impact or the effect of the findings recorded in the prior proceedings had not been discussed at all. It is pertinent to note that the main contention of the tenants in these batch matters is that it cannot be said that the grounds of willful default or denial of title are established in view of the fact that findings had been recorded in the prior proceedings about the bona fide doubt entertained by the tenants. It is pertinent to note that though the ground of denial of title was raised, the landlords were not very particular about this ground in the Court of first instance. It is pertinent to note that though the ground of denial of title was raised, the landlords were not very particular about this ground in the Court of first instance. However, even the ground of denial of title may have to be decided in the light of the findings recorded in the prior proceedings only since those findings will have material bearing while deciding the ground. The evidence let in on behalf of the landlords in this regard, in my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may not be sufficient to decide these matters. Even in the light of the facts brought to my notice about the judgment in CRP No. 2725 of 1998 and SA No. 217 of 1995, in the absence of consideration of the effect of the findings in the prior proceedings by the appellate authority, it cannot be said that the impugned orders are made in accordance with law and are sustainable in law. Hence, instead of further probing the matter in these revisions at the revisional stage, it will be just and appropriate to remit all these matters back to the appellate authority to record proper findings in the light of the prior findings recorded in the prior proceedings between the same parties, if necessary by affording further opportunity to adduce further evidence if any by the respective parties in this regard. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petitions are allowed and the matters are remitted back to the appellate authority to dispose of the same within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order, for the purposes indicated above. But however in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.