( 1 ) THE original tenant Jakka Subba Rao died during the pendency of R. C. C. No. 3/91 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Junior civil Judge, Kaikalur and the legal representatives of the said deceased Jakka subba Rao who were brought on record - revision Petitioners, at present are prosecuting the present litigation. ( 2 ) THE Revision petitioners, aggrieved by the orders made in R. C. C. No. 3 /91 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Junior Civil judge, Kaikalur and also in C. M. A. No. 8/99 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, machilipamam, had preferred the present civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, hereinafter in short referred to as "act". ( 3 ) THE original tenant had taken a stand that the land in question is a poramboke and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent controller after recording the evidence of p. W. 1 to P. W. 7 and R. W. 1 to R. W. 3 and marking Exs. A-1 to A-21 and Exs. B-1 to b-66, allowed the said R. C. C. and aggrieved by the same, Jakka Nancharamma and Jakka sivanarayana - respondents 3 and 4 in r. C. C. No. 3/91 who were brought onrecord as per the orders in I. A. No. 651/98, dated 19-2-1999, had preferred C. M. A. No. 8/99 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipamam and the appellate authority by the order dated 30-8-2000 had dismissed the Appeal, with costs, and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. ( 4 ) SRI P. R. Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners submitted that when there is a specific denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, the burden is on the landlord to establish that there is tenancy between the parties. The learned Counsel also submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 herein miserably failed to establish the tenancy. The learned Counsel also pointed out that Ex. A-13 is an unregistered document and not signed by the alleged lessor and the lessee and hence the same is inadmissible in evidence and placing reliance on such inadmissible document, recording a finding relating to tenancy is bad in law. The learned counsel also pointed out that the very genuineness of Ex. The learned Counsel also pointed out that Ex. A-13 is an unregistered document and not signed by the alleged lessor and the lessee and hence the same is inadmissible in evidence and placing reliance on such inadmissible document, recording a finding relating to tenancy is bad in law. The learned counsel also pointed out that the very genuineness of Ex. A-16 also is in dispute and except Ex. A-13 and Ex. A-16, there is no other documentary evidence available on record to establish the alleged tenancy. The learned Counsel also pointed out that no survey number had been mentioned in exs. A-l to A-3 and Exs. A-4 to A-12 are the tax receipts by which title cannot be established. Ex. A-17 list was brought into existence only for the purpose of this litigation. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the evidence recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate authority. Reliance also was placed on certain decisions to substantiate his contentions. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Sri Sivalanka Rama chandra Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the respondents 1 and 2 had made the following submissions. The learned counsel pointed out that the landlord and tenant relationship had been well established and concurrent findings had been recorded in this regard. The learned Counsel also submitted that an objection relating to admissibility of Ex. A-13 is being raised for the first time in the present litigation and such an objection was not raised at any point of time earlier. The learned Counsel also had pointed out certain admissions made relating to the ownership by R. W. 3 and also had taken this Court through the evidence of the other witnesses. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Revisional Court had sent ex. A-13 for hand-writing expert and whether the said opinion is relied upon or not, the result would be the same since in fact the courts below had compared the signatures and had recorded a finding that they are alike. Even otherwise, in view of Exs. A-1 to a-3 sale deeds, since the boundaries are clear, though survey numbers are not mentioned, the title of the respondents 1 and 2 is clearly established. The evidence of the witnesses p. W. 1 to P. W. 17 is clear and categorical. Even otherwise, in view of Exs. A-1 to a-3 sale deeds, since the boundaries are clear, though survey numbers are not mentioned, the title of the respondents 1 and 2 is clearly established. The evidence of the witnesses p. W. 1 to P. W. 17 is clear and categorical. At any rate, in view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, this revisional Court should be slow in disturbing the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below. Reliance also was placed on certain decisions by the learned Counsel. ( 6 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 7 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 herein, as petitioners/landlords in R. C. C. No. 3/91 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-Junior Civil judge, Kaikalur had pleaded as hereunder: the petitioners are the absolute owners of the schedule houses and site which is an extent of Ac. 0-07 1/2 cents situated at kaikalur, more fully described in the schedule. The 1st respondent took the schedule site with thatched house on lease from the petitioners about 25 years back. Originally, the rent was stipulated at rs. 25/- per month. Later, from 1989, the rent was stipulated at Rs. 200/- per month payable by the end of every month for the said site and houses. The 1st defendant had been running hotel business in the schedule property. The schedule property had been purchased by the father of the petitioners and the same was allotted to the petitioners in oral partition. Since January 1990, the 1st respondent committed default in payment of rent willfully. He also sub-let a part of the schedule property to the 2nd respondent without the permission of the petitioners. The 1st petitioner wants to set up a fancy shop in the schedule property and the petitioner intends to set up consulting design shop through his son who is an unemployed civil certificate holder. The petitioners got issued notice to the respondents on 26-12-1990 demanding them to handover possession of the schedule property as the 1st respondent committed willful default in payment of rent and as he sub-let a portion of the schedule property to the 2nd respondent without permission of the petitioners and as the schedule property is required for the personal occupation of the petitioners. The respondents received the said notice and they got issued a reply denying the lease and denying the title of the petitioners. The respondents received the said notice and they got issued a reply denying the lease and denying the title of the petitioners. On that ground itself, the respondents are to be evicted from the schedule site. All the allegations in the said reply notice are utterly false. The petitioners, therefore, filed this petition for eviction of the respondents from the schedule property for committing willful default in payment of rent; for sub-letting the schedule property; for the personal requirement of the petitioners and as the respondents denied the title of the petitioners. During the pendency of the petition, the 1st respondent died and respondents 3 and 4 were added as legal representatives of their father-1 st respondent. ( 8 ) THE 1st respondent - Jakka Subba Rao, who is no more had denied all the allegations and had further pleaded that the petitioners have nothing to do with the schedule site and it is poramboke. It was further stated that the schedule site was full of bushes and vacant. More than 20 years back, the 1st respondent occupied the schedule site, cleared the bushes, levelled the ground and constructed four thatched sheds therein. The 1st respondent secured electric connection and carried on fruit business for some time and later switched over to hotel business. The petitioners family also occupied some adjacent site. The 1st respondent is an illiterate. He is not worldly wise. There were differences between the family of the 1st respondent and the petitioners family. The petitioners are understood to have managed to create panchayat records in their favour with ulterior motives. This petition was filed for wrongful gain. The 1st respondent perfected his title over the schedule site by adverse possession. There is no cause of action for the petition. The 2nd respondent is a lessee under the 1st respondent. ( 9 ) THE 3rd respondent who was brought on record filed an additional counter as hereunder: the averments in the petition that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the petition schedule houses and site; that the 1st respondent took the schedule site with thatched houses on lease from the petitioners about 25 years back; that the rent was rs. 20/- per month initially and it was later enhanced to Rs. 20/- per month initially and it was later enhanced to Rs. 200/-; that the schedule property was originally purchased by the father of the petitioners; that there was partition and allotment of the schedule property to the petitioners; that there is alleged default of rent; that there is sub-lease to the 2nd respondent; that the allegations of the reply notice of the 1st respondent, are false and are not correct. The petitioners have nothing to do with the schedule site. Probably, it is poramboke. The schedule site was full of bushes and was vacant. More than 30 years back, the 1st respondent occupied the schedule site, cleaned the bushes, levelled the ground and constructed four thatched sheds therein. The 1st respondent secured electricity connection and carried on fruit business for some time and later switched over to hotel business. The petitioner s family also occupied some adjacent site. The 1st respondent is an illiterate. He is not worldly wise. There are differences between, the family of the 1st respondent and the petitioners family. The petitioners are understood to have managed to create Panchayat records in their favour with ulterior motives. The petition was filed for wrongful gain and it is stated that the petitioners have no manner of right and title to the petition schedule property. As the respondents 1, 3 and 4 denied the title of the petitioners to the petition schedule property, the petition is not maintainable under the rent Control Act. The petitioners ought to have filed a-suit for declaration of their right over the schedule property and for any other reliefs such as possession in a Civil Court. Even if the petitioners are the owners of the property, they have to file a suit for possession in a Civil Court as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondents 1, 3 and 4 under the circumstances stated above. The 1st respondent perfected his title over the petition schedule property by adverse possession. There is no cause of action for the petitioners to file this Petition. Except the allegations which are specifically traversed and admitted herein, this respondent denies the rest of the allegations. ( 10 ) THE 4th respondent filed a memo of adoption adopting the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. There is no cause of action for the petitioners to file this Petition. Except the allegations which are specifically traversed and admitted herein, this respondent denies the rest of the allegations. ( 10 ) THE 4th respondent filed a memo of adoption adopting the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. ( 11 ) ON the strength of the above pleadings, the following Points were framed by the learned Rent Controller: (1) Whether there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondents herein? (2) Whether the respondents herein committed willful default in payment of rent? (3) Whether the requirement of schedule premises by the petitioners herein is the bona fide requirement? (4) Whether the denial of the title of the petitioners by the respondent is bona fide one? (5) Whether the respondent No. 1 herein has sub-leased the schedule premises to the respondent No. 2 herein without the consent of the petitioners? (6) To what relief? the learned Rent Controller had discussed the oral and documentary evidence, the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 7, R. W. 1 to r. W. 3 and Exs. A-1 to A-21 and Exs. B-1 to b-66 and ultimately had allowed the R. C. C. Aggrieved by the same, as aforesaid, the legal representatives of the original tenant jakka Subba Rao filed C. M. A. No. 8/99 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam showing the 2nd respondent in R. C. C. i. e. , shaik Baji as 3rd respondent, and inasmuch as the Appeal also was dismissed, with costs, the present Civil Revision Petition was filed as against the petitioners in the R. C. C. shown as respondents 1 and 2 and 2nd respondent in the R. C. C. , shown as the 3rd respondent. ( 12 ) CONCURRENT findings had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller- cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur and also the appellate authority-Senior Civil Judge, machilipatnam. It is no doubt true that that this Court had sent Ex. ( 12 ) CONCURRENT findings had been recorded by the learned Rent Controller- cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur and also the appellate authority-Senior Civil Judge, machilipatnam. It is no doubt true that that this Court had sent Ex. A-13 questioned signatures marked as Q-1 and Q-2 to be compared with the standard signatures in the deposition of R. W. 1 marked as S-l to s-9 and the standard signatures in the counter filed marked as S-10 and S-11 and ultimately an opinion was expressed by the concerned assistant Director that when all the writing habits are considered collectively, the person who wrote S-1 to S-11 also wrote Q-1 and q-2. No doubt, both the Counsel while addressing the arguments were not particular about this opinion. It is needless to say that it is only an opinion evidence, but at any rate, the opinion is in favour of the successful parties. ( 13 ) BE that as it may, it is no doubt true that while appreciating the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate authority had placed reliance on Ex. A-13, dated 12-3-1981 and ex. A-16 dated 1-2-1974. The main contention of the Counsel for the Revision petitioners is that these documents styled as lease agreements are unregistered and both the lessor and the lessee had not signed these documents and hence on the strength of such inadmissible documents, a finding cannot be recorded that the jural relationship of landlord and tenant had been proved. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on Abdul Kadir v. Noor Mohammed Salt and others, Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah deo v. Jogeshwar Sikhar and others, Budh Ram v. Ralla Ram, Arif v. Jadunath Majmudar, hussain Begum v. M. Ranga Rao, Relangi nageswara Rao v. Tatha Chiranjeeva Rao (Died) by L. Rs. , K. P. Janaki Ram v. K. Suguna Bai. No doubt, contentions relating to admissibility of Ex. A-17 also had been raised. ( 14 ) I had given my anxious consideration to the material available on record. Apart from the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 7, there is the evidence of R. W. 3 also who had admitted the ownership of the family of respondents 1 and 2. A-17 also had been raised. ( 14 ) I had given my anxious consideration to the material available on record. Apart from the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 7, there is the evidence of R. W. 3 also who had admitted the ownership of the family of respondents 1 and 2. It is no doubt true that the opinion expressed by the hand-writing expert at the instance of the Revisional Court had not been pressed into service seriously by both the Counsel. Reliance had been placed on Uligappa v. S. Mohan Rao to the effect that the provisions of the Transfer of property Act cannot be made applicable in the case of Rent Control proceedings and also placed reliance on Kanta Gael v. B. P. Pathak and also the decision in Kedar bhatiav. Lingarkar Panduranga Rao and others. It is no doubt true that the objection relating to admissibility of Ex. A-13 was never taken before on the ground of non-registration and for the first time, such objection is raised. It is pertinent to note that apart from Exs. A-13 and A-16, Exs. A-1 to A-3 - sale deeds, are on record and though the survey numbers are not mentioned, the boundaries are clear and findings had been recorded by both the courts below relating to these registered sale deeds. Apart from this documentary evidence, the house tax receipts marked as exs. A-4 to A-11 and the cist receipt marked as Ex. A-12 also are no record. No doubt, on behalf of the present Revision petitioners/ tenants, Jakka Subba Rao, the original tenant was examined as R. W. 1 and Jakka sivanarayana was examined as R. W. 2 and another Sanivarapu Panduranga Rao was examined as R. W. 3 and Exs. B-1 to B-66 were marked. These are all documents like bill card for electricity charges, demand notices, professional tax receipts, sales tax receipts, labour Inspector s receipt and receipt for commercial Tax payment etc. There cannot be any controversy about these documents. In the light of Exs. B-1 to B-66 were marked. These are all documents like bill card for electricity charges, demand notices, professional tax receipts, sales tax receipts, labour Inspector s receipt and receipt for commercial Tax payment etc. There cannot be any controversy about these documents. In the light of Exs. A-1 to A-3, coupled with the clear oral evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 7and the clear findings recorded by both the Courts below that in the light of the boundaries the subject matter of litigation is clearly identified, it cannot be said that at any stretch of imagination, respondents 1 and 2 were unable to establish their title. The very fact that the title is denied on the ground that it is a poramboke property cannot be said to be a bona fide stand, especially in the light of exs. A-l to A-3. Whether Ex. A-17 partition list dated 11-5-1969 is believed or not, the fact remains that the property belongs to the family of respondents 1 and 2 and whether it had fallen to the respective shares or not, the fact remains that as members of the family respondents 1 and 2as petitioners/landlords can definitely maintain the eviction petition under the Act, provided they are able to satisfy that there has been the tenancy between them and the original tenant Jakka subba Rao. The appellate authority also had taken pains and after framing the Points for consideration, discussed all the aspects in detail commencing from para 8 and concluding the same at para 23 and had affirmed all the findings recorded by the learned Rent controller. Except raising the question of want of jural relationship between the parties, since all the other questions will not arise at all, the learned Counsel for the petitioners had not advanced any arguments relating to the other grounds. Categorical findings had been recorded relating to the other grounds raised in the eviction petition and concurrent findings in detail had been recorded by both the Courts below in this regard. ( 15 ) IT is no doubt true that on the strength of an unregistered lease transaction which is inadmissible in evidence, the main relief of eviction cannot be sustained. But, in the present case, I am satisfied that there is other material available on record to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. ( 15 ) IT is no doubt true that on the strength of an unregistered lease transaction which is inadmissible in evidence, the main relief of eviction cannot be sustained. But, in the present case, I am satisfied that there is other material available on record to establish the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Hence, in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, especially in the light of the other ample oral and documentary evidence available on record dehors Exs. A-13 and a-16, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit matter where any interference is called for by this Revisional Court under section 22 of the Act. In view of the same, the civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed, with costs.