THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2060 OF 2007 ORDER: This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the unsuccessful tenants, is directed against the eviction order dated 29.10.2001 passed by the Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, in A.T.C.No.95 of 1996 as confirmed by the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram in A.T.A.No.8 of 2004 dated 12.03.2007. The respondents herein filed the above ATC contending that the petition schedule property consisting of 26 cents in S.No.87/4 of Vadapalli village and 93 cents in R.S.No.88/2 of Vadapalli village was owned by one Mallipudi Venkata Rao, the husband of the first respondent, and father of respondents 2 and 3. According to them, the said Venkata Rao cultivated the land for some time. After the death of Venkata Rao, the first respondent leased out the petition schedule property to Annamdevara Narayana Murthy on an annual rent of Rs.300/- payable by Phalguna Bahula Amavasya and also on the condition of payment of land revenue on her behalf and handed over the possession of the property to Narayana Murthy. It is stated that the said lease was oral. Narayana Murthy paid rents till December 1966 and committed default in payment of Rs.200/- from 1996. After exchange of notices the respondents herein filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 1981 for declaration of title and possession of the plaint schedule property. The said suit was decreed and the same was confirmed by this Court in A.S.No.1555 of 1985 with regard to declaration of title. However, with reference to the possession, this Court held that the possession has to be obtained through proper Court. While so, Narayana Murthy died on 23.12.1992. On his death the petitioners herein were in possession of the petition schedule property as his legal representatives, but they too failed to pay maktha and committed default. Therefore, the respondents herein filed ATC seeking eviction of the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein contested the ATC by filing counter stating that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them; the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute; the alleged settlement deed relied upon by the petitioners is not valid and binding on them; the petition schedule property belongs to them and they are in possession and enjoyment in their own right; To substantiate their respective pleas, the first respondent herein was examined as PW.1 and she also examined PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. On behalf of the petitioners herein, the second petitioner was examined as RW.1 but no documents were marked on their behalf. The learned Judge observed that RW.1 in his cross- examination admitted that he is continuing as tenant in petition schedule property; he has not paid any cist for petition schedule property; his father executed settlement deed in favour of Venkata Rao. The evidence of RW.1 was supported by the evidence of PW.2 in whose presence the property was leased out to Narayana Murthy, for annual rental of Rs.300/-, payable on every Telugu New year day every year. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P.4-settlement deed proves that the petition schedule property and other properties were settled in favour of the husband of the first respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 herein. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.5 proves that the respondents herein are entitled to seek eviction of the petitioners herein, and accordingly ordered their eviction. On appeal being preferred, the lower appellate Court, observed that the petitioners have got the property from Venkata Rao, who was the owner of the property as per the settlement deed dated 5.05.1958; that the title of the petitioners was confirmed in the suit and the appeal in A.S.No.1555 of 1985; that the respondents though say that there is a Letters Patent Appeal pending, no evidence has been produced before this Court to show that any such appeal is pending. The lower appellate Court after taking the admission of RW.1 into consideration viz., “I am in possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property and I am continuing as tenant in petition schedule property” also observed that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, establishes that the father of RW.1 had taken the property on lease, and on his death the petitioners are continuing as tenants. Mere denial at some point of time that they are not the lessees does not amount to denial of relationship of landlord and tenant. Once the petitioners entering into possession of the schedule property is accepted, they are liable to be evicted and accordingly confirmed the order passed in ATC. It is now fairly well settled that a tenant accepting the title of the landlord inducted into the possession of the property, thereafter though he denies the title of the landlord, he has to vacate the property and establish the same by way of independent evidence. But once inducted into the property as a tenant he cannot deny the title of the landlord. In view of the same, the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below in ordering eviction of the petitioners herein do not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners can harvest the crop, if any, subject to payment of arrears of maktha, and shall continue to pay the same without any default. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 17th December, 2009 Js.