Order: Heard Sri N. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”) is filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 4.4.2008 in RCA No.16 of 2000 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur confirming the order dated 24.7.2000 in RCC No.52 of 1997 of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. The petitioners filed the said RCC for eviction of respondent contending that 1st petitioner is the absolute owner of the properties belonging to all the institutions under its Management; the Hindu College is one institution under its management; as per the bye-laws, all the properties of the Hindu College vest in the 1st petitioner; that 1strespondent took on lease a small room in 1986 for running soda shop on a monthly rent of Rs.250/-; he paid rent only upto January 1994 and thereafter did not pay rents and committed wilful default in payment of rents; the petitioners also require the RCC schedule shop for their personal use and occupation as they wish to have clear frontage of “Eka Dandaiah Pantulu Hall” and for the parking space for the audience, by removing the RCC Schedule Shop after evicting the respondent. The respondent initially filed a counter dated 2.2.1998 admitting that he was paying rents upto July 1997 and contending that no receipts were ever given by the petitioners to him; that rent was Rs.250/- per month; that his father served the petitioner-institution without any remuneration and expired later; that as a gesture of goodwill for the services the father of the respondent has rendered, the management of 1st petitioner permitted him to run a soda shop in the premises. The respondent denied that he is in arrears of rent and committed any wilful default in payment of rent. He also contended that the alleged requirement of the petitioner i.e. to give a face lift to “Eka Dandaiah Panthulu Hall” is not true and that the requirement is not bonafide. The respondent denied that he is in arrears of rent and committed any wilful default in payment of rent. He also contended that the alleged requirement of the petitioner i.e. to give a face lift to “Eka Dandaiah Panthulu Hall” is not true and that the requirement is not bonafide. The respondent thereafter changed his counsel and filed I.A.No.614 of 2000 before the Rent Controller seeking to amend his counter by raising a plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioners; that only a vacant site was allotted to the father of the respondent for the services faithfully rendered by him to the petitioners without any remuneration; constructions over the said site were made by the father of the respondent at his own cost and suitable structure alterations were made by the respondent at his costs to have an opening to the road. This amendment petition, in my view, destroys the admissions made in the earlier counter filed by the respondent on 2.2.1998 wherein the respondent had admitted that he was a tenant and he was paying rents upto the end of July 1997 and that there was no default in payment of rent. It is settled law that admission in a pleading cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by way of an amendment. (See HEERALAL v. KALYAN MAL ( AIR 1998 SC 618 ). So the Rent Controller could not have allowed the amendment of counter. The petitioners could not have challenged it by way of appeal before the appellate authority under the Act as such an appeal was held to be not maintainable by this Court M. NAGENDER RAO v. B.M. LAKSHMIAH ( 1996 (1) ALD 964 ). In the said case, this Court held that revision under Section 115 of CPC is not maintainable before this Court challenging an order dismissing an application for amendment of pleadings; that a person can file an appeal even against the interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller if he is so aggrieved by that order, but such order should be one which would effect the rights and liabilities of the parties; but all interlocutory orders which amount only to steps taken, towards the final adjudication cannot be challenged in appeal. It held that any order permitting amendment does not affect the rights and liabilities of parties and is therefore not liable to be challenged by way of an appeal filed under Section 20 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the petitioners could not have challenged separately by way of appeal under Section 20 of the Act, the order dt 13.6.2000 in I.A.No.614 of 2000 passed by the Rent Controller permitting amendment of the respondent’s counter and withdrawing the admissions made by him in the earlier counter. The petitioners are therefore entitled to question the said order in this Civil Revision Petition filed against the orders of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. As the order of the Rent Controller allowing the amendment of counter by respondent is contrary to law, it is set aside. Consequently, I have to consider only the earlier counter dt 2.2.1998 filed by the respondent and ignore the amended counter. It is to be seen that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority acted upon the said amended counter of the respondent and came to a conclusion that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant; that there is no wilful default in payment of rent by the respondent; and petitioners failed to prove that there is a bonafide requirement of the RCC schedule premises. In my view, the impugned orders cannot be sustained as they are based upon the amended counter of the respondent withdrawing the admissions made by him in the original counter affidavit wherein he admitted that he was a tenant and he was paying rents. In my view, the only pleading of the respondent, which has to be considered is the one contained in original counter dt 2.2.1998 filed by him. In the said counter, he denied that there is default in payment of rent from January 1994 and contended that he paid rents upto the end of July 1997. But in his evidence, he pleaded that there is no rent fixed for the shop by the petitioners and therefore he need not pay any rent. Thus, his evidence is inconsistent with his pleadings and he failed to establish that he paid rents upto the end of July 1997 as contended in the counter dt 2.2.1998. But in his evidence, he pleaded that there is no rent fixed for the shop by the petitioners and therefore he need not pay any rent. Thus, his evidence is inconsistent with his pleadings and he failed to establish that he paid rents upto the end of July 1997 as contended in the counter dt 2.2.1998. Sri N. Subba Rao, counsel for the respondent however contended that there was an admission by the witness for the petitioners as P.W.1 in his cross examination that there is no rent payable for the RCC schedule premises by the respondent or his father. I have gone through the evidence of P.W.1. In his cross examination, there is a reference to a house within the premises of the petitioners-college which was leased to the father of the respondent and it is stated by P.W.1 that no rent is being paid since beginning even by the respondent’s father. With regard to the RCC schedule premises no doubt P.W.1 stated that father of the respondent did not pay any rent to the petitioner but he has specifically stated that the respondent paid rents upto January 1994. Thus, there is no such admission by the P.W.1 in his evidence that there was no rent need be paid by the respondent to the petitioners in respect of the RCC schedule shop. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have misdirected themselves by taking into account the amended counter of the respondent raising the plea of absence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant and have erroneously came to the conclusion there is no wilful default in payment of rent. In my view, the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained in the light of the pleadings of the respondent in the original counter dt 2.2.1998 about the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondent. As the respondent failed to adduce any evidence in support of his pleading that he had paid rents upto July 1997 and on the other hand stated in his evidence that no rent is fixed at all for the shop in his occupation, I am of the view that the petitioners have made out a case for eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent by the respondent since January 1994. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to go into the issue as to whether the RCC schedule premises/shop is also bonafidely required by the petitioners. For the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed the order dt 4.4.2008 in RCA No.16 of 2000 of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur and the order dt 24.7.2000 in RCC No.52 of 1997 of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur are set aside; the respondent is directed to vacate the RCC schedule premises and deliver vacant possession thereof to the petitioners within four months from today; respondent shall also pay all arrears of rent @ Rs.250/- per month from January 1994 till he vacates the premises within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall also file an undertaking before the RentController-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur that he would vacate and handover vacant possession of the RCC schedule shop to the petitioners on or before 5th July 2013. In default of payment of arrears of rent or of filing undertaking as directed above, the petitioners shall be at liberty to execute the order of eviction forthwith.