THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 1876 of 2008. ORDER: The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by the Judgement dt 17.4.2008 in A.T.A.No. 14 of 2007 on the file of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (District Judge, West Godavari confirming the Judgement in A.T.C.No. 5 of 2002 on the file of the Special Officer (Prl. Junior Civil Judge) Kovvur dt. 14.8.2007. The 1st respondent herein during her life time filed ATC.No. 5 of 2002 on the file of Special Officer (Prl. Jr. Civil Judge), Kovvur under Section 13 of A.P. (A.A.) Tenancy Act seeking to evict the revision petitioner from the petition schedule land and put her in possession of the same. Now she is being represented by her legal representatives. The 1st respondent claimed title to the petition schedule property by virtue of will dt. 13.1.2000 said to have been executed by her father late Vesta Jagannadham. It is also her case that during the life time of her father, he orally leased out the petition schedule land to the revision petitioner on an annual rent of Rs. 2,000/- per acre payable on 1st January of every year and that her father died on 18.9.2000 and after the death of her father also, the revision petitioner was cultivating the land and was regularly paying rents to her. Further case of the deceased 1st respondent was that the revision petitioner stopped payment of rents from 1.1.2002 and that though she demanded the revision petitioner to pay rents by the notice dt. 9.1.2002, the revision petitioner either paid the rents or handed over the land to her and therefore she approached the court seeking eviction of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed counter stating that late Vesta Jagannadham leased out the petition schedule land to him on an annual rent of Rs. 1000/- per acre payable on 31st March of every year and that after the death of said Jagannadham, when he enquired his sons V.S.Satyam, V.Nagewararao and V.Krishnarao, he was told that they succeeded to the petition schedule property along with other properties by virtue of will dt. 15.5.2000 executed by their father and that he informed about his tenancy over the petition schedule land to them, then the sons of late Jagannadham agreed to continue the tenancy on the same terms and conditions as imposed by late Jagannadham. It was contended that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between him and the deceased 1st respondent and therefore sought to dismiss the ATC. On the above pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues: i) Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and whether this petition is maintainable. ii) Whether the respondent committed default in payment of rent for the petition schedule land to the petitioner. iii) If so, whether the respondent is ordered to be evicted from the petition schedule land and put the petitioner in possession of the petition schedule land. iv) To what relief. Before the trial court, the deceased 1st respondent examined Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Exs:A.1 to A.3. The revision petitioner examined RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs:R.1 to R.7. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by both the parties, allowed the petition and ordered eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule land and put the deceased 1st respondent in possession of the petition schedule property, by the Judgement dt. 14.8.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed ATA.No. 14 of 2007 before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (District Judge) West Godavari, who confirmed the judgement of the trial court, by the impugned judgement. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The only point that arises for consideration is when there is a dispute to the title, whether all the claimants are necessary parties to the eviction petition or not? It appears that when there is a bona fide dispute with regard to title and there are rival claims by virtue of will or other will and when the tenant claims that he had paid rents to one of such claimants, it is better to decide the rival claims before deciding the issue of default by the tenant. Even if it appears that the tenant had paid rents under a bona fide mistake, the courts have to consider whether it amounts to wilful default or not. Admittedly, the land in question belongs to one Vesta Jagannadham and the deceased 1st respondent is one of his daughters. The deceased 1st respondent claims title to the land in question by virtue of will dt. 13.1.2000 said to have been executed by her father Jagannadham in her favour. Admittedly, the deceased 1st respondent is also having three brothers and two sisters. In ATC one of her brothers was examined as RW.2, who disputes the will said to have been executed in favour of the deceased 1st respondent. He stated in his evidence that their father executed another will in his favour and in favour of his two other brothers. Admittedly, the deceased 1st respondent filed a civil suit O.S.No. 371 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Jr. Civil Judge, Kovvur for declaration of title. From the pleadings of the parties and from the evidence on record, it appears that the rights of the parties have not been crystallised and when the rights of the deceased 1st respondent and her brothers and sisters have not been crystallised, all the legal representatives of the late Jagannadham are deemed to have succeeded to the petition schedule lands. In those circumstances, one of them cannot claim as landlord and collect rents from the tenant. It is submitted that though the deceased 1st respondent filed a petition to implead her other brothers and sisters as parties to ATC, the said application was dismissed by the court below. It is not known under what circumstances, that application was dismissed. Since there is a dispute with regard to the ‘wills’ said to have been executed by late Jagannadham in favour of the deceased 1st respondent and in favour of his son, all the sons and daughters of said late Jagannadham are necessary parties and in the absence of other legal heirs, the rights of one of the legal heirs cannot be determined. Therefore, the impugned Judgements are set aside and the matter is remitted back to be tried along with O.S.No. 371 of 2002 on the file of I Additional Jr. Civil Judge, Kovvur. Since the impugned orders are set aside, the revision petitioner is at liberty to file a petition for restoration of his possession over the petition schedule land. The respondents 2 to 4 herein are at liberty to file an application before the trial court to fix appropriate rent for the petition schedule land and seek a direction to deposit the same into the court. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit and ATC as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 3.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 1876 of 2008. ORDER: Dt. 3.12.2010.