( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order of the III Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad in LA. No. 1064/94 in R. C. No. 60/94 dated 17-4-1995. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is the respondent in R. C. No, 60/94 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad. The respondent filed R. C. No. 60/94 on the ground that he is the landlord of the scheduled premises, praying for eviction of the petitioner, styling him as tenant. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-tenant filed a counter disputing the relationship of the landlord and tenant. ( 4 ) AS can be seen from the impugned order no oral evidence was recorded by the learned III Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad, but however, Ex. P-l to P-4 and exs. R-1 to R-21 had been marked and, ultimately,. the application was allowed directing the tenant to deposit rents from april, 1991 to April, 1995 at the rate of rs. 360/- per month, on or before dated 17-5-1995. The application I. A. No. 1064/94 in R. C. No. 60/94 had been filed under section 11 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 praying for a direction to the revision petitioner- respondent on the ground that he is the tenant, to pay the arrears of rent. Specific stand was taken disputing the same. ( 5 ) IN Changanlal v. Narsingh Pershad the full Bench held that: when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied that question has to be decided finally by making a regular enquiry and not provisionally by a summary enquiry before assuming jurisdiction in the matter and orders be passed under Section 11 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 and such a determination will be the decision in the main eviction petition itself. " ( 6 ) HENCE, in the absence of the parties letting in oral evidence, by just marking the documents, such question cannot be decided. In view of the same, the impugned order is hereby set aside. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.