( 1 ) THESE civil revision petitions are filed by the un-successful landlady being aggrieved by the reversing order made by the Principal senior Civil Judge-appellate authority in the respective R. C. C. M. As. ( 2 ) THE landlady filed R. C. C. Nos. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of 1984 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vijayawada and the learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and marking Exs. A-1 to A-40 and after recording the evidence of R. W. I/respondent in r. C. C. No. 21 of 1984 R. W. 2 in R. C. C. No. 19 of 1984 and R. W. 3 in R. C. C. No. 20 of 1984 and after marking Exs. B-1 to B-4, having framed the points for consideration, on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the land lady is entitled to the relief prayed for and allowed the aforesaid r. C. C. s. It is stated that in pursuance there of, four of the tenants had vacated the respective premises, but, however, the others had carried the matter by way of appeals and the appellate authority/principal Senior Civil judge, Vijayawada, had reversed the same mainly on the ground that the original title deed was not produced and only photostat copy was produced and also there is some doubt relating to the identity and had allowed the appeals. Asagainst R. C. C. No. 16of 1984, r. C. C. M. A. No. 53 of 1987, as against r. C. C. 15 of 1984 R. C. C. M. A. 52 of 1987, as against R. C. C. No. 21 of 1984, R. C. C. M. A. No. 58 of 1987, as against R. C. C. No. 18 of 1984, R. C. C. M. A. No. 55 of 1987, as against r. C. C. No. 14 of 1984 R. C. C. MANo. 51 of 1987 and as against R. C. C. No. 17 of 1984, r. C. C. MANo. 54 of 1987 were preferred by the respective tenants. Inasmuch as a common order was reversed by yet another common order by the appellate authority, the landlady questioning the said order had preferred C. R. P. Nos. 2685,2686 2687,3118, 3206 and 3475 of 2002 respectively. Inasmuch as a common order was reversed by yet another common order by the appellate authority, the landlady questioning the said order had preferred C. R. P. Nos. 2685,2686 2687,3118, 3206 and 3475 of 2002 respectively. ( 3 ) CONTENTIONS of Sri Laxmi Prasad: sri Laxmi Prasad learned counsel representing the revision petitioner/landlady had taken this Court through the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 and also would submit that in several of the R. C. Cs. , the tenants even had not chosen to enter into the witness box and as far as R. W. 2 and R. W. 3 are concerned, they have already vacated the premises. In the light of the same, the evidence of R. W. 1 alone is available on record as on to-day, since R. W. 1 is contesting the matter in c. R. P. No. 2687 of 2002. The learned counsel also would submit that the title to the property and the identity of the property, these questions are in serious controversy and no objection had been taken at the time of marking of the documents, but, however, on the ground that the title deed is only a photostat copy, the same has been reversed by the appellate authority. The learned counsel also would submit that except C. R. P. No. 2687 of 2002, in all other revisions, the respective tenants had not chosen to enter into the witness box. The learned counsel in all fairness would submit that no doubt, common evidence was recorded and common order was passed and hence, the other evidence available on record also may be looked into. The learned counsel also had brought to the notice of this Court that the registration copy of the title deed is produced before this Court so as to satisfy the court in relation to the question in controversy. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and would contend that these findings are well considered findings and reversing the same on certain unsustainable grounds by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and would contend that these findings are well considered findings and reversing the same on certain unsustainable grounds by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) CONTENTIONS of Sri Sal Gangadhar chamarthi:sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthi, learned counsel representing the respective respondents-tenants in the civil revisions would contend that though there is no specific denial, there is a denial relating to the jural relationship between the landlady and tenant and hence, the burden is on the landlady to establish the same. In the absence of acceptable evidence, relief of eviction cannot be granted. Whether objection is taken or not, inasmuch as only photostat copy had been produced before the learned Rent controller, the appellate authority arrived at the correct conclusion and had recorded reasons and ultimately allowed the appeals. In the light of the reasons recorded in detail by the appellate authority, this Court as revisional Court not to disturb such findings. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel on record and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and the findings recorded by the appellate authority as well. ( 6 ) INASMUCH as all the R. C. Cs. , were disposed of by a common order and the appeals also were disposed by reversing the common order of the learned Rent Controller by a common order by the appellate authority and in view of the fact that common evidence had been recorded, these Civil Revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order. ( 7 ) AS already referred to supra, in four r. C. Cs, the respective tenants already had vacated the premises, since they had not chosen to prefer any appeals. The landlady represented by the Power of Attorney Holder filed R. C. Cs, for eviction of different portions. It was pleaded that the house bearing dr. No. 12-12-22 with Assessment No. 9590 in N. T. S. N0. 15/1-A in Padi Street, vijayawada-1, of which, the petition schedule premises would form the portions belonged to late Vallabhaneni Mallikarjuna Rao, he had to pay huge amount as arrears of income tax and estate duty. It was pleaded that the house bearing dr. No. 12-12-22 with Assessment No. 9590 in N. T. S. N0. 15/1-A in Padi Street, vijayawada-1, of which, the petition schedule premises would form the portions belonged to late Vallabhaneni Mallikarjuna Rao, he had to pay huge amount as arrears of income tax and estate duty. To recover the said arrears, the Tax Recovery Officer authorized as per Vallabhaneni Raghavendra Rao, to sell the said property and the said property was sold to the petitioner by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 28-5-1981. It is also the case of the petitioner/landlady that the respective tenants had taken the premises for residential purpose on monthly rents about 10 or 11 years ago. It was also pleaded that soon after purchase, the petitioner through her Power of Attorney, contacted the respective tenants/respondents and informed them about the purchase and asked them to pay rents. The tenants had not chosen to pay rents and committed wilful default and also they are denying the little of the landlady. The tenants filed counter denying the allegations. It was pleaded that they are not the tenants of the petitioner and they never agreed to pay any such rents whatsoever and there are no arrears of rent at all. It was also pleaded that the respondents are residing in the site in the shed put up by the respondents about five years ago with the permission of mallikarjunarao. ( 8 ) BEFORE the learned Rent Controller, common evidence was recorded in r. C. C. No. 14 of 1984 and on behalf of the petitioner, P. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and exs. A-1 to A-40 were marked and on behalf of the tenants, the respondent in R. C. C. No. 21 of 1984 was examined as R. W. 1. Respondent in R. C. C. No. 19 of 1984 was examined as r. W. 2 and respondent in R. C. C. 20 of 1984 was examined as R. W. 3. Exs. B-1 to B-4 also were marked. It is however, brought to the notice of this Court that except R. W. 1, the other witnesses R. W. 2 and R. W. 3 also had vacated the respective premises. Exs. B-1 to B-4 also were marked. It is however, brought to the notice of this Court that except R. W. 1, the other witnesses R. W. 2 and R. W. 3 also had vacated the respective premises. ( 9 ) THE learned Rent Controller framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether there is relationship of landlady and tenant between the petitioner and respondents in all the petitions in respect of the respective petition schedule premises; (2) Whether the denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondents is bona fide and (3) Whetherthe respondents committed wilful default in payment of rents. ( 10 ) THE learned Rent Controller appreciated the evidence available on record commencing from paras 5 to 14 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the landlady is entitled to the relief of eviction prayed for. As against this common order, six of the tenants already referred to supra had preferred the respective appeals on the file of the Principal senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada/appellate authority and the appellate authority framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whetherthere is landlady and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent before the learned Rent Controller and the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent is bona fide. (2) Whether there is any wilful default committed by the respondents in respect of paying rents; (3) Whether the order and decretal orders of the learned Rent Controller are erroneous and are liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) THE appellate authority recorded reasons and ultimately allowed the appeals. Hence, these civil revision petitions are filed. ( 12 ) ON a careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate authority, it is clearthatthe appellate authority had reversed the common order made by the learned Rent Controller mainly on the ground that Ex. A-1, dated 28-5-1981 - photostat copy of the sale deed alone was produced and there is some doubt relating to the identity. This objection was not taken before the learned Rent Controller. The documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence had been taken into consideration and findings had been recorded by the learned rent Controller. The fact that they have been occupying the respective premises with the consent of Mallikarjuna Rao is not in serious controversy. This objection was not taken before the learned Rent Controller. The documentary evidence coupled with the oral evidence had been taken into consideration and findings had been recorded by the learned rent Controller. The fact that they have been occupying the respective premises with the consent of Mallikarjuna Rao is not in serious controversy. As can be seen from certain of the portions made by R. W. 1, R. W. 2 and r. W. 3 as well, as already referred to supra, the revision petitioner/landlady is claiming and praying for the relief of eviction in relation to different portions on the ground that she had purchased the property. The original owner and the subsequent purchase, in fact, had been well established. P. W. 1-the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner is the mother of the petitioner. Ex. A-1 is the photostat copy of the registered sale deed, dated 28-5-1981 executed by the authorized agent of the Tax Recovery Officer of the income Tax, Vijayawada, by name vallabhaneni Raghavendra Rao. It is pertinent to note that the case of the petitioner is that the petition schedule premises and the other property belonged to late Vallabhaneni mallikarjuna Rao, who is none other than the father of P. W. 1 and as he fell in arrears of income tax and estate duty, his property was attached by the Income Tax Department. It appears that his son Raghavendra Rao had obtained permission to sell the property to clear off the said arrears and in pursuance of the said permission, Raghavendra Rao executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioner. Ex. A-1 is the photostat copy of the registered sale deed, dated 28-5-1981. P. W. 1 had explained that the original of Ex. A-1 was executed (sic. lost) on the date of journey. Hence, she could not produce the original document. It appears that in the light of the finding recorded by the appellate authority, the revision petitioner/landlady thought it appropriate to produce the registration copy of the sale deed before this Court. In the light of the reasons explained by P. W. 1, when the photostat copy of Ex. A-1 was admitted in evidence without any objection whatsoever, the appellate authority reversing the same, on the ground that the original was not produced, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be sustained. In the light of the reasons explained by P. W. 1, when the photostat copy of Ex. A-1 was admitted in evidence without any objection whatsoever, the appellate authority reversing the same, on the ground that the original was not produced, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be sustained. Prior to the filing of the R. C. Cs, the petitioner issued exs. A-28, A-30 to A-36 and Ex. A-38- registered notices, Ex. A-25, A-26 and A-37 are the returned covers. Ex. A-24 is the postal acknowledgment in one such case. Ex. A-29 is the reply notice. In the light of the recitals of Ex. A-1, the stand taken by the respective tenants that there is some dispute relating to the identity also cannot be accepted. The learned Rent Controller appreciated the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 in detail and recorded the findings. Apart from the documentary evidence already referred to supra, the other documents relied upon also had been taken into consideration. Ex. A-3 is the Blue Plan, Ex. A-4 is the Challan, Ex. A-5 is the property tax assessment register, exs. A-6 to A-11 are property fax receipts. Ex. A-12 is the photostat copy of the land revenue receipt, Ex. A-13 is the endorsement letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner-ll of Municipal Office, Vijayawada, Ex. A-14 is the notice issued by the Municipal Office, ex. A-15, Ex. A-16 and Ex. A-17 are account books, Ex. A-18 is the prohibitory order issued by the Income Tax Recovery Officer, ex. A-19 is the similar prohibitory order, ex. A-20 is the true copy of the letter addressed by the Tax Recovery Officer, Ex. A-21 is the attachment istihar of the property of v. Mallikarjuna Rao, Ex. A-22 is the schedule of the property of Mallikarjuna Rao. Ex. A-23 is the certified copy of the claim petition in e. A. No. 479 of 1984 in O. S. No. 181 of 1969 in e. P. No. 322 of 1982. Ex. A-39 is the slip showing the expenditure incurred for the construction of the house, Ex. A-40 is the pronote executed by M. Gnana Muttu in favour of P. W. 1. As against this evidence of P. W. 1 - v. Vimala Devi and P. W. 2-P. Suryanarayana raju, and also the documentary evidence, exs. A-9 to Ex. A-40, the tenants-R. Ws. A-40 is the pronote executed by M. Gnana Muttu in favour of P. W. 1. As against this evidence of P. W. 1 - v. Vimala Devi and P. W. 2-P. Suryanarayana raju, and also the documentary evidence, exs. A-9 to Ex. A-40, the tenants-R. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and R. W. 2 and R. W. 3 had vacated the premises. Exs. B-1 and B-2 are the letters, dated 23-11-1972 and 25-11-1984 respectively. Ex. B-3 is the M. O. receipt and Ex. B-4 is the M. O. coupon. The evidence of R. Ws. 1, 2 and also had been dealt with in detail by the learned Rent controller. In the chief-examination of R. W. 1, he had deposed that Mallikarjuna Rao gave these sites and houses for our living and there is no stipulation for payment of rents to these houses and these houses belong to us only and they need not be given back to mallikarjuna Rao. This appears to be the stand taken at least by all the witnesses. ( 13 ) TAKING the over all facts and circumstances into consideration and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, this court may have to arrive at a conclusion whether the stand taken by the respective tenants/respondents in the c. R. Ps, can be said to be bona fide or justifiable stand. ( 14 ) THE original owner of this property is not in serious controversy and the subsequent events, which had happened in the family and how the properly came into the hands of the revision petitioneralso is clear. In the light of the clear admissions made by the respective tenants relating to the original owner of the property, the mere assertion that they are entitled to these properties cannot be accepted. When voluminous oral and documentary evidence had been placed on behalf of the petitioner to establish the aspects, on a ground that a photostat copy of the sale deed was produced before the learned Rent Controller and Ex. A-1 was marked, on such a ground, Ex. A-1 cannot be ignored, especially, when no such objection had been taken by the respective tenants and also in the light of the evidence of P. W. 1 in this regard. A-1 was marked, on such a ground, Ex. A-1 cannot be ignored, especially, when no such objection had been taken by the respective tenants and also in the light of the evidence of P. W. 1 in this regard. P. W. 1 in his chief examination specifically deposed that the original documents relating to the power of attorney and the sale deed were lost in the transit in plane while going to America. This explanation of P. W. 1 is a sufficient explanation and in the light of the same, ex. A-1 was marked by the learned Rent controller and the issues had been taken into consideration and findings had been recorded. In the light of the clear findings, which had been recorded by the learned rent Controller, the grounds on which the same had been reversed by the appellate authority, in the considered opinion of this court, cannot be sustained. It is needles to say that the orders of the appellate authority to be set aside and the orders made by the learned Rent Controller in this regard to be restored. ( 15 ) IT is needless to say that inasmuch as certain relevant portions of the oral evidence also had been referred to the other portions need not be dealt with in detail. Accordingly, the revision petitioner-landlady is bound to succeed in the civil revision petitions. In view of the findings recorded above, the civil revision petitions are hereby allowed with costs. The tenants are granted two months time to vacate the premises.