P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Kishore Rai, the learned counsel representing the legal representatives of the tenant-cum-revision petitioner, and Sri Malla Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the respondent-landlord. ( 2 ) AS can be seen from the record, Smt. Yashoda Bai, original tenant died during the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition and revision petitioners 2 to 4 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased revision petitioner by an order made in C. M. P. No. 5567 of 2002, dated 16-10-2003. The respondent-landlord filed R. C. No. 822 of 1994 on the file of the IV Additional rent Controller, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad, praying for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of willful default, securing alternative accommodation, sub-letting the premises. The learned Additional Rent Controller had dismissed R. C. No. 822 of 1994 by an order dated 09-05-1997. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord-Sri Om Prakash Dhoot preferred R. A. No. 207 of 1997 on the file of the Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad-Appellate authority, and the Appellate Authority having confirmed the findings on all other aspects, had arrived at a conclusion that the landlord had established the ground of securing alternative accommodation, and on that ground eviction was ordered. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant-Smt. Yashoda Bai preferred the present Civil Revision Petition, who died pending litigation and legal representatives had already been brought on record as referred to supra. ( 3 ) SRI Kishore Rai, learned counsel representing the legal representatives of the tenant had taken this Court through the findings recorded by both the learned rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and had submitted that in view of the concurrent findings recorded relating to other grounds, the same may not be disturbed by the revisional Court. Learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant findings in relation to the ground of tenant securing alternative accommodation and had commented that the approach of the Appellate authority in this regard, cannot be sustained especially in the light of the fact that Ex. A-4 stands in the name of one Kanthamma and the same was marked by consent after closure of the evidence of PW. 1. A-4 stands in the name of one Kanthamma and the same was marked by consent after closure of the evidence of PW. 1. The learned counsel also had drawn attention of this Court to the clear findings recorded by the learned Rent controller and the pleading relating to the ground of securing alternative accommodation made in the eviction petition and also had commented that the view expressed by the Appellate Authority relating to the burden of proof, definitely cannot be sustained, especially in the light of Ex. B-16 counsel also commented that it is unfortunate that a reasonable opportunity to rebut Ex. A-4 had not been given, which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel had assailed the findings of the Appellate Authority in this regard reversing well-conversed findings of the learned Rent Controller. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri Malla Reddy, the learned senior counsel representing the landlord in all fairness submitted that in the light of the concurrent findings recorded in relation to other grounds, the said questions need not be seriously considered in the present revision. However, the learned counsel would maintain that at para-13 of the Judgment of the Appellate Authority, reasons in detail had been recorded and the only question that has to be decided in the present civil Revision Petition is whether the approach adopted by the learned Appellate authority can be found fault in any way. The learned counsel submitted that when the certified copy of the electoral roll-Ex. A-4 shows the names of Yashoda Bai and her family members, it is natural that it is for the tenant to explain why and under what circumstances, the said names have been shown. The learned counsel also would maintain that this is a public document i. e. , electoral list relating to Chikkadpalli. The learned counsel also submitted that as far as exs. B-16 and Ex. B-16 (a) are concerned, these are voters lists of Charminar assembly Constituency and the relevant entry in the said voters list. The learned counsel also would maintain that in the light of the specific stand taken by the landlord relating to the shifting, the mere fact that the names are shown in Ex. B-16 and Ex. B-16 (A) also would not alter the situation, in any way, in the absence of any convincing explanation on the part of the tenant in this regard. B-16 and Ex. B-16 (A) also would not alter the situation, in any way, in the absence of any convincing explanation on the part of the tenant in this regard. The learned counsel also had taken this Court meticulously through the findings recorded by both the Tribunals below in this regard. ( 5 ) HEARD both the counsel and perused the findings recorded by the learned additional Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority as well. ( 6 ) THE other factual details need not be narrated at length for the reason that the other grounds on which the relief was negatived by recording concurrent findings had not been seriously canvassed. As far as the ground of securing alternative accommodation is concerned, at para-3 in R. C. No. 822 of 1994, it was pleaded as hereunder"he further submitted that the respondent shifted her residence for last more than one year along with her family from the petition premises to other place and sublet the petition premises to the labourers. He submitted that the son of the respondent is carrying the Pan Dabba Business and the labours of the Pan shop are residing in the petition premises. As such the respondent is liable to be evicted on this ground also. " ( 7 ) THE learned Rent Controller had recorded findings relating to this aspect while answering point No. 2 at paras 15 and 16 and the relief was negatived on this ground also observing that the landlord failed to prove that the tenant had secured alternative accommodation at Chikkadpalli. This view expressed by the learned Rent Controller was seriously assailed, and the Appellate Authority had recorded reasons in detail at para-13, wherein the learned Appellate Authority had observed that Ex.-A4 shows the names of the tenant and her family members, which would definitely indicate that they are residing at Chikkadapalli. It is no doubt true that the tenant also filed voters list Ex. B-16 and had stated that they are residing at the demised premises only. It may be that the names of the tenant Yashoda Bai and her family members had been recorded in Ex. B-16 and also ex. A-4 as well. It is no doubt true that the tenant also filed voters list Ex. B-16 and had stated that they are residing at the demised premises only. It may be that the names of the tenant Yashoda Bai and her family members had been recorded in Ex. B-16 and also ex. A-4 as well. ( 8 ) IN a decision in RAGHUNATH BEHERA v. BALARAM BEHERA while dealing with the admissibility of electoral roll in evidence in relation to Section 35 of the indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was observed as hereunder :"electoral roll being a public document is admissible evidence and it is not necessary to prove source of information on the basis whereof facts stated in the roll were recorded, nor is it necessary that the person who prepared electoral roll has to be examined. They are entitled to the extraordinary degree of confidence partly because they are required by law to be kept, and partly because their contents are of public interest and notoriety; but principally because they are made under the sanction of oath of office or at least under that of official duty by accredited agents appointed for that purpose. " ( 9 ) AT any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the landlord had either manipulated or brought into existence this public document Ex. A-4 just for the purpose of throwing the tenant out on the ground of securing alternative accommodation. The Appellate Authority, in my considered view, had arrived at the correct conclusion relating to the burden of proof, and when it is shown that the tenant and her family members are residing at a particular premises at chikkadpalli, definitely it can be inferred, prima facie, that the tenant had shifted the residence. It is no doubt true that the tenant could have shown that these are not the true state of affairs and despite the fact that these names are shown in Ex. A-4 she had continued in the demised premises, could have been shown by her by letting in evidence. Having allowed the public document to come on record, now, the contention cannot be advanced that reasonable opportunity to rebut the same had not been provided for to the tenant. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the said contention at this stage. Having allowed the public document to come on record, now, the contention cannot be advanced that reasonable opportunity to rebut the same had not been provided for to the tenant. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the said contention at this stage. It may be appropriate to have a look at the reasons which were recorded by the Appellate Authority at para-13, wherein the Appellate Authority had stated as hereunder :"the other aspect that has to be considered is about securing alternative accommodation. The burden lies on the landlord to prove about securing alternative accommodation of the tenant. Explaining about this fact P. W. 1 stated in his evidence that the respondent has shifted residence from the demised premises and residing at some other place to Chikkadpally. P. W. 1 further stated that prior to one and half year of filing of the eviction petition tenant shifted to Chikkapally and one labourer is residing in the petition premises. To substantiate his claim the landlord placed reliance on Ex. A-4 certified copy of the Electoral roll showing the names of respondent and her family members which indicates that they are residing at Chikkadpally. To rebut this contention, the tenant placed reliance on two grounds. That the summons were sent and served to the address of the demised premises. Secondly, tenant also filed voters list covered under Ex. B-16 and stated that they are residing in the demised premises and it was not let out to any person as claimed by the landlord. Ex. A-4 is the certified copy of the voters list issued by the competent authority, whereas ex. B-16 printed voters list. The Rent Controller placed reliance on Ex. B-16 and accepted the contention of the tenant. But it is to be noted when the landlord establishedprima facie about other residence of tenant other than the demised premises by way of documentary evidence, the burden shifts to the tenant to disprove the same. In the instant case, simply because the tenant filed printed voters list it cannot be said that burden was shifted from tenant to landlord. The tenant completely failed to explain that why her name and other family members name was shown in the Chikkadpally voters list, Exhibit A-4 conclusively establishes that about the residence of the tenant in different area other than the demised premises. The tenant completely failed to explain that why her name and other family members name was shown in the Chikkadpally voters list, Exhibit A-4 conclusively establishes that about the residence of the tenant in different area other than the demised premises. It is not explained by the tenant in what capacity or since how long they have been residing in the new premises at Chikkadpally. The tenant did not shown Ex. A-4 document. Mere filing of the voters list stating that they are residing at demised premises is itself is not sufficient to disprove the contention on behalf of the landlord. On the other hand, it clearly indicates that the tenant secured alternative accommodation and also got possession of other premises other than the suit premises. The next contention is about serving summons. Tenant received summons in this case from demised premises. Therefore, it indicates that tenant also got possession of suit premises. Ex. A4 document shows the possession of their premises. No reasonable explanation was offered for the contents of Ex. A-4. So, it indicates that tenant got alternative accommodation. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, as the tenant failed to explain the residence at Chikkadpally covered under Ex. A4, it can be concluded that the tenant secured alternative accommodation and, therefore, she is liable for eviction and ordered accordingly. " ( 10 ) THE approach adopted by the Appellate Authority, in my considered view, cannot be said to be an erroneous approach especially on the aspect of burden of proof, and hence, ordering eviction on the said ground is well in accordance with law. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with the said findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, as far as the ground relating to tenant securing alternative accommodation is concerned, the said findings are hereby affirmed. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel representing the revision petitioners, however, makes a request stating that reasonable time is required to vacate the premises. ( 12 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the legal representatives of the tenant are granted time of three months to vacate the premises. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed, as being devoid of merits. No costs.