Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: s. 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(a) – Eviction of tenant – Original owner of the property leased out the property to the predecessor in interest of the appellants and they were paying rent to the owner – Case of the respondent that his father had purchased the said property vide registered sale deed – Respondent filed petition for eviction of tenant-appellant no. 2 and 3 and others from shop on the ground of non-payment/default in payment of rent, tenant’s denial of the title of the landlord not being bonafide, and landlord’s right to be put in the possession of property for his own business use – Appellants denied the title of the respondent as also claimed title over the schedule property contending that they purchased the same from the original owner – However, the tenant directed to vacate the schedule property – Said order upheld by the appellate authority and the High Court – Interference with – Held: Not called for – When the respondent, as landlord, claimed eviction on the ground of tenants’ denial of his title over the petition schedule property and to establish such denial as not being bonafide produced its registered sale deed, the appellants and their predecessors-in-interest could not justify the denial merely by asserting that their predecessor-in-interest, had purchased it for a valid consideration, without producing any supporting material(s) admissible in evidence – In respect of the sale of an immovable property, worth value which makes the sale deed compulsorily registrable, the genuineness of the denial of title cannot be decided based on presumptions and oral assertations ignoring a valid registered document – Concurrent findings of the courts below that the title of the respondent was malafidely denied by the appellants is the rightful conclusion on appreciation of the facts and evidence obtained in this case – Nothing that would establish non-consideration of any material or consideration of irrelevant material, to arrive at the finding that the requirement to get vacant possession of the petition schedule property of the respondent is malafide – In view thereof, no reason to hold that such findings are infected with perversity or manifest injustice.