C.R.P.Nos.4204 and 4216 of 2017 maintained by the respondent-tenant-Smt. A.P. Leela of R.C.No.149 of 2008, whereas C.R.P.Nos.4205 and 4212 of 2017 are similarly filed by the respondent-tenant-Sri N. Sunder Raj of R.C.No.148 of 2008. The respective alleged landlords are by names N. Kishore Yadav in R.C.No.149 of 2008 and N. Sudarshan Yadav in R.C.No.148 of 2008.

2. It is the eviction petitions under A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) were maintained on the grounds of personal requirement, willful default in payment of rent and denial of title. The Rent Controller in both the petitions from the respective evidence after contest from full-fledged trial/enquiry having held that the dispute as to identity raised by the tenant is not tenable, however, the respective landlord could not prove that there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant in seeking eviction. Consequently, against the dismissal orders from the so-called relationship landlord-tenant must pre-exist, even property identity not in dispute, the landlord-N. Kishore Yadav maintained R.A.No.88 of 2012 against dismissal of the eviction petition in R.C.No.149 of 2008 and tenant maintained R.A.No.90 of 2012 and the landlord-N. Sudershan Yadav maintained R.A.No.89 of 2012 against dismissal of the eviction petition in R.C.No.148 of 2008 and tenant maintained R.A.No.91 of 2012 against the finding of the property identity tallied.

3. The learned appellate Tribunal in the respective disposal of the appeals of R.A.Nos.88 and 92 of 2012 together and similarly R.A.Nos.89 and 91 of 2012 together by dismissing the appeals of the tenant allowed the appeals of the respective landlords, holding that what the Tribunal held of the identity of the property tallied is correct and there is a jural relationship from the landlord proved the ownership of the property and contention of the tenant that there is no jural relationship and it is ancestral property respectively are untenable, thereby and from the very pleading in the eviction petition vis--vis the evidence on record, the tenant is liable for eviction.

4. Impugning the said appellate Courts judgments, the respective two tenants filed the above four revisions.

5. Heard both sides in all the four revisions for common disposal and perused the material on record.

6. So far as the eviction petition averments respectively concerned, it is in relation to Door No.1-13-68 to 70. The respective eviction petition schedule also describes the same. Ex.P.1-sale deed respectively in favour of the respective landlords show in the schedule also the same Door No. and refers as Old No.44. Among the respective petition averments, it is the claim that Dharmapuri Keshava Rao, who was the 3rd defendant even in the suit O.S.No.307 of 1958 covered by Ex.P.10-final decree, dated 13.08.1963 got the property and he sold respectively under original of Ex.P.1 to the respective two eviction petitioners, so-called landlords. The respective averments in the eviction petitions show that for the respective petition schedule properties, the respondents and for the other three more properties R. Shanker, Prem Kumar and M. Sudarsha are the tenants. The said D. Keshava Rao, the vendor under Ex.P.1, introduced the tenants supra, to the respective petitioners, the vendees, and also directed the tenants to pay future rents to them respectively for the respective portions covered by the sale deeds and informed that the tenancy was oral. It is also mentioned regarding rent and the practice of not passing receipts and the tenant to bear the electricity and water charges, etc., It is further averred that there is a willful default and also bonafide requirement and there is a dental of title in the reply to the notice are liable to be evicted. The counter filed by the respective tenants are that the allegation of after sale in favour of the respective eviction petitioners by the vendor D. Keshava Rao, they attorned the tenancy or