THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No:2639 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner filed A.T.C.No.49 of 1990 in the Court of the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, against the respondents with a prayer to declare him as the cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule property, admeasuring Ac.3.15 cents. A.T.C. was dismissed on 5.08.1999. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed A.T.A.No.31 of 1999 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, and the same was dismissed on 8.10.2004. Hence, this revision petition. Heard Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Even from a perusal of A.T.C. filed by the petitioner, it is evident that he is the adopted son of respondents 1 and 2. That being the case, the question of the petitioner claiming the status of a tenant does not arise. The Courts below have appreciated the matter in correct perspective, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 9th September, 2009 Js.