THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3635 of 2010 Dated:20.08.2010 Between: Gandiraju Suryanarayana Raju, And another. ….Petitioners And Vanguri Venkata Adinarayana Kishore, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3635 of 2010 ORDER: Being aggrieved by order dated 16.06.2010 in ATA No.25 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (District Judge), West Godavari, Eluru, the petitioners are in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The background of the case in a nutshell is that the petitioners are tenants of the respondents (landlords) in respect of two items of agricultural wet land; item No.1 being land admeasuring Acs.2.52 cents comprised in R.S.Nos.148/2 (Ac.1.74 cents), R.S.No.152/7 (Ac.0.44 cents) and R.S.No.152/8 (Ac.0.34 cents) and item No.2, being land admeasuring Ac.1.48 cents in R.S.Nos.139/3, 4, 5 and 6 situated at Vadluru Village of Undrajavaram Mandal in West Godavari District. The agreed maktha/rent was 60 bags of paddy for the first crop payable before 15th January and 20 bags for the second crop payable before 30th April of every year. It appears, originally, the first petitioner is the tenant and he attorned the tenancy in favour of the second petitioner as the former migrated to Nowpada Village of Srikakulam District for the purpose of taking up cultivation there. The landlords instituted ATC No.9 of 2003 under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (the Act), for eviction of the tenants on the ground that the tenants committed default in payment of rents for the first and second crops of the year 2001-2002. After issuing registered notice Ex.A3, to which Ex.A4 reply was issued by the tenants denying the allegations, the case was filed. The tenants opposed the application contending that the rents were paid for both the crops for 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 within the stipulated period, and that there is no practice of the landlords issuing receipts or notices to the tenants. Enquiry was conducted by the Special Officer – cum – Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, before whom ATC was filed. One of the landlords, Annapurna, gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of tenants, Suryanarayana Raju gave evidence as R.W.1 and examined R.W.2 and R.W.3 to corroborate their evidence besides marking Exs.B1 to B6. On considering the evidence, the Court below believed the evidence of R.W.2 and R.W.3 and held that there was no default. The Court below also had drawn an adverse inference against the landlords for not instituting a suit for recovery of rent for the year 2001-2002. The landlords appealed, being ATA No.25 of 2007, and the learned District Judge reversed the Special Officer and ordered eviction of the tenants. In this revision petition, the Counsel for the tenants/petitioners contends that the appellate Tribunal committed grave error in not correctly appreciating the evidence of R.W.2 and R.W.3, and that the rent was paid for 2001-2002. He nextly contends that the tenants have discharged their burden and therefore, the finding recorded by the appellate Tribunal is perverse. Counsel for the landlords/respondents who filed caveat before this Court contends that the Special Officer was very much swayed by nonfiling of suit by landlords, and tenants failed to discharge the burden on them. The criticism of the Counsel for the petitioners that the appellate Judge failed to consider the evidence is uncharitable. In paragraphs 20 and 22 the learned appellate Tribunal has considered the evidence and gave cogent and convincing reasons to reject the evidence of R.W.2 and R.W.3. As rightly pointed out by the first appellate Tribunal, the name of R.W.2 was not mentioned in Ex.A4 reply notice issued by the tenants to Ex.A1 legal notice issued by the landlords. Secondly, R.W.3 did not depose anything about payment of rent and he was examined only to prove the threats of the first respondent to evict the petitioners. If the evidence of R.W.2 and R.W.3 is ignored, what remains is selfserving statement of the second respondent herein. Therefore, the tenants cannot be held to have properly discharged the burden in paying the rent. Under the Act it is the obligation of the tenants to pay the rent to claim the benefit of the statute, and tenant who fails to pay the rent or in case fails to discharge the burden of proving payment of rent cannot have the benefit conferred under the statute. In Pendyala Sudha Rani v Basava Janakiramayya[1] this Court was considering the case of the landlord for eviction as well as case of tenants for claiming statutory benefits under the Act. Therein the question arose whether a landlord who fails to file a suit for recovery of rent allegedly due from the tenants can seek declaration. Dealing with this aspect, this Court observed as under. Once the tenancy is not disputed, and the landlord alleges that the tenant committed default in payment of rent, the burden squarely rests upon the tenant, to prove the payment thereof. The reason is that the landlord cannot be expected to prove a negative fact, stating that the rent was not paid. Proof, if, at all, would exist for payment, and not for non-payment… …Reference in this context is made, to a suit filed by the petitioner, for recovery of the maktha, for the three years. The said inference is totally without any basis. Normally, any well advised land owner, in the present state of affairs, would wait, for a tenant, to commit default for a substantial period, so that it can be pleaded as a ground for eviction. Even if no suit was filed, for recovery of arrears of rent, the tenant would not be relieved of his burden or obligation to prove the payment thereof, if, in fact, it was paid. Before this Court also, the learned Counsel for the respondent is not able to establish as to how, and in what manner the rent for the said period was paid. The first appellate Court correctly proceeded to consider the matter in the light of the ratio in Pendyala Sudha Rani (supra), and therefore, it must be held that the petitioners/tenants have failed to demonstrate any grave error apparent on the face of the record. It is well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until such error is pointed out, no interference is called for. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20.08.2010 vs [1] 2010 (1) ALT 222