THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.551 of 2008; CRP 229and CRP 230 of 2011 Date of Order: 21-01-2011 CT in CRP 551 of 2008 Between: M/s.Krishna Steels Rep. by its proprietor D.Koshore Kumar ..Petitioner and Ch.Nageswara Rao ..Respondent The Court made the following Common Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.551 of 2008; CRP 229and CRP 230 of 2011 Common order: These three revisions are directed against the common order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dismissing I.A.Nos.1878, 1879 and 1866 of 2007 in O.S.No.3512 of 2003, dated 17-12-2007. The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit filed for eviction, arrears of rent and damages, filed written statement admitting that he is the tenant in the premises bearing door No.11-5-9 on a monthly rent of Rs.1100/- and the plaintiff is the owner; as the plaintiff is working as Police Constable in I Town police station, used to collect the rents every month personally by issuing receipts; apart from the suit schedule premises he owns 10 more buildings and it fetches rents of Rs.1 lakh approximately. The petitioner/defendant also filed a suit—O.S.No.593 of 2004 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada to declare him as statutory tenant of the suit schedule premises and to grant decree for permanent injunction against the respondent/plaintiff not to evict him except by due process of law. At that stage the present I.As. viz., I.A.No.1878 of 2007 to receive document; I.A.No.No.1879 of 2007 to reject the plaint and I.A.No.1866 of 2007 seeking leave to file additional written statement are filed by the petitioner after issues are framed and after closure of evidence of the plaintiff and during the course of cross-examination of D.W.1 contending that he is filing demand notice in respect of tenant premises and property tax issued by Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, which stands in the name of father of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property, he cannot seek eviction of the petitioner/defendant; therefore, municipal tax receipt can be received as additional evidence and he may be permitted to amend the written statement pleading that the respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the schedule premises to evict him. The lower court dismissed the said I.As. On dismissal of I.As. the present revisions are filed. Once the petitioner filed a written statement admitting that he is the tenant under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.1,100/- and used to pay the rent to him, it is not for him to take a plea that the respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the property and cannot seek eviction from the property. By virtue of amending the written statement in I.A.No.1866 of 2007 the petitioner/defendant wants to wipe out the admission made earlier in the written statement, which cannot be permitted that too at the stage of cross-examination of D.W.1. Further, in the counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff opposing I.As. it is brought to the notice that the petitioner/defendant filed O.S.No.593 of 2004 to declare him as statutory tenant of schedule premises and restrain the respondent/plaintiff from evicting him without due process of law, which also shows that he admitted ownership of the respondent/plaintiff. In view of the same, dismissal of I.As. by the lower curt after commencement of trial and seeking amendment of written statement with inconsistent plea to wriggle out the admission of landlord—tenant relationship to the disadvantage of the plaintiff do not suffer from manifest illegality warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 21-01-2011 Murthy