( 1 ) THE unsuccessful tenant, aggrieved by the reversing order made in r. A. No. 401/99 on the file of Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad, had preferred the present C. R. P. The respondent herein is the petitioner in r. C. No. 798/95 on the file of III Additional rent Controller, Hyderabad, being unsuccessful before the Court of First instance, the landlord preferred R. A. No. 401/ 99, as aforesaid, which was allowed. As against the same, the tenant filed the present C. R. P. ( 2 ) C. R. P. M. P. No. 4808/2005 is moved before this Court to implead petitioners 2 to 5 as respondents 2 to 5 in the C. R. P. and pass such other suitable orders. The said application is opposed on the ground that since the learned Rent controller dismissed the eviction petition, the same had attained finality so far as the proposed parties are concerned, since they were not brought on record and since they had not preferred any appeal. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was stated that I. A. No. 461/97 was filed to implead them in the eviction case, being co-owners of the property and the same was ordered by order dated 24-9-1997. But, however, due to clerical or typographical mistakes, their names were not shown in the cause title in the order dated 23-6-1999 passed in R. C. No. 798/95 and the same omission was carried as it is even in R. A. No. 401/99 on the file of additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes court, Hyderabad, and hence, in the interest of justice, the same could be rectified. It is pertinent to note that the landlord is grandson of the original owner in the light of the definition of the landlord under a. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as the Act ), a person receiving rents also may fall under the definition of landlord . Apart from this aspect of the matter, the others are the family members of the landlord and they had been brought on record just to rectify the defect. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the others are the family members of the landlord and they had been brought on record just to rectify the defect. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that c. R. P. M. P. No. 4808/2005 to be allowed and accordingly the same is hereby allowed in the interest of justice. ( 3 ) SRI Vilas Afzul V. Purkar, the learned Counsel representing the tenant had pointed out that there is some discrepancy in the title deeds and the name of the grandmother is not tallying and hence, the Court of First Instance is well justified in driving the party to a Competent Civil court. The learned Counsel also would contend that the Appellate Authority, without appreciating the facts and circumstances in proper perspective, allowed the appeal and the same cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the appellate Authority and also would comment that the order of the Appellate Authority is the cryptic order and just basing on oral evidence, findings had been recorded relating to the jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant and the same cannot be sustained. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, Counsel representing the respondents-landlords sri Dilipkumar Shirodkar would contend that except just denying the title, the stand taken by the tenant is as vague as vagueness can be and there is no clear evidence available on record, both oral and documentary. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and would contend that in the light of the clear evidence available on record, the denial of title by the tenant can be said to be only mala fide denial and hence the findings are to be confirmed. ( 5 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 6 ) AS already referred to supra, the c. R. P. is filed under Section 22 of the Act as against the reversing order made in r. A. No. 401/99 on the file of Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad-the Appellate Authority. ( 5 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 6 ) AS already referred to supra, the c. R. P. is filed under Section 22 of the Act as against the reversing order made in r. A. No. 401/99 on the file of Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad-the Appellate Authority. The landlord specifically pleaded that the revision petitioner is the tenant and he had obtained it on rent from his late grandmother laxmamma, who was the owner and landlady of the premises in the year 1965 for residential purpose on a monthly rent of rs. 5/- and subsequently rents had been enhanced and at present the monthly is rs. 500/- excluding electricity charges. It was also pleaded that the tenant has not been paying electricity charges and hence the connection was disconnected. Further, it was specifically pleaded that the tenant intentionally and deliberately denied the title of the landlord in a mala fide way. It was further pleaded that the tenant was highly irregular in payment of rents. The ground of bona fide personal requirement also had been raised on the ground that they are having a very large family and hence, the bona fide requirement is pleaded. The very jural relationship had been denied and simply it was pleaded that he had perfected his title by adverse possession. ( 7 ) AT the outset it can be stated that the counter filed by the tenant is a vague as vagueness can be. An additional counter also had filed specifically denying the title of the landlord. The landlord was examined as p. W. I and P. Ws. 2 to 4 also were examined and Exs. P. l to P. 22 were marked. The tenant was examined as R. W. 1 and R. Ws. 2 and 3 were examined as Exs. R. l to R. 5 were marked. The Appellate Authority framed the following points for consideration: (1) Whether the denial of the title of the landlord by the tenant is mala fide? (2) Whether the respondent has committed default in payment of rent from December, 1992 to November, 1994? (3) Whether the petitioners bona fide require the suit premises? ( 8 ) COMMENCING from Paras 10 to 16, the whole evidence available on record had been appreciated and ultimately, the appeal was allowed ordering eviction. (2) Whether the respondent has committed default in payment of rent from December, 1992 to November, 1994? (3) Whether the petitioners bona fide require the suit premises? ( 8 ) COMMENCING from Paras 10 to 16, the whole evidence available on record had been appreciated and ultimately, the appeal was allowed ordering eviction. Hence, the c. R. P. ( 9 ) THE landlord as P. W. 1 deposed about all the details and also further deposed that a legal notice on 9-11-1995 was issued for arrears of rent and also to vacate the premises under Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2 is the postal acknowledgement. Though the tenant received the same, he has not chosen to give any reply. The original owner gifted the demised premises to his sons Balaiah and Laxmaiah in document No. 793/1341, page 116, Volume 1341 F. Book No. 1 under ex. P. 3-Gift Deed. Subsequent thereto, they sold the demised property to his grandmother under Ex. P. 5 and Ex. P. 6 is the translation of Ex. P. 5. The Encumbrance certificate given by the Sub-Registrar, banjara Hills, from 1st January, 1939 to 31-12-1958 is Ex. P. 7. Ex. P. 8 is another encumbrance Certificate January, 1959 to 31-4-1995. Ex. P. 9 is another Encumbrance certificate. In all these Exs. P. 7, P. 8 and p. 9, the suit property is shown in the name of the grandmother of P. W. 1. Ex. P. 10 is the property tax paid to the municipality standing in the name of the grandmother. Exs. P. 10 and P. 11 also had been relied upon. Exs. P. 12 to P. 22 also had been marked to show that this property belongs to the landlord s family. The father of p. W. I was examined as P. W. 2 who deposed about all the details supporting the version of P. W. I. This witness also further narrated about the details of the documents marked. The payment of tax, the enjoyment, the title deeds, clearly go to show that the property belongs to the landlord s family. An argument was advanced that when the father is alive, the son cannot initiate the eviction action. The payment of tax, the enjoyment, the title deeds, clearly go to show that the property belongs to the landlord s family. An argument was advanced that when the father is alive, the son cannot initiate the eviction action. In the light of the evidence of P. W. 1, P. W. 1 also may fall within the meaning of the landlord it is not as though, there is any conflict of interest between father and son. Even otherwise, all the parties were brought on record, but by mistake the same was not carried out and now the said defect is rectified. P. W. 3 is the neighbour who deposed about the landlord and tenant relationship and also his acquaintance with the tenant and the other particulars. P. W. 4 also deposed about these aspects. As against this evidence, R. W. 1 was examined and except denying the title, no acceptable evidence had been placed before the Court. Apart from this aspect of the matter, there is clear evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 how the tenant has committed wilful default for sufficiently a long time, pleading adverse possession. The conduct of the tenant also may have to be taken into consideration when notice had been issued no reply had been given. There is clear evidence available on record relating to the title. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the evidence of p. Ws. 3 and 4 also is available on record. Further, P. W. 2 deposed in detail how his family requires the premises bona fidely since large family depends on him. Taking all the facts and circumstance into consideration, the Appellate Authority recorded reasons in detail commencing from Paras 10 to 16. The object of the tenant in taking a vague plea of adverse possession and denying the title of the landlords family appears to be with a view to delay the proceedings and to drive them to a Civil Court to have prolonged litigation. Hence, definitely the denial is not a bona fide one and a mala fide denial of title. ( 10 ) ON a careful scrutiny of the whole evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, whatsoever, and accordingly, the findings are hereby confirmed and the C. R. P. shall stand dismissed with costs. ( 10 ) ON a careful scrutiny of the whole evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, whatsoever, and accordingly, the findings are hereby confirmed and the C. R. P. shall stand dismissed with costs. The tenant is granted a month s time to vacate the premises.