IN THE HIGH Court OF JUUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6457 of 2006 Between: Marreddi Subba Reddy Tank Trust, Tumuluru … Petitioner And: Marreddi Venkata Sivarami Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.6457 of 2006 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the decree and judgment dated 10.10.2006 in ATA No.7 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Judge (Before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal), Guntur, wherein, the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein- Trust, was dismissed confirming the order dated 30.11.2000 in ATC No.26 of 1994 on the file of the Special officer under Tenancy Act cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed ATC No.26 of 1994 before the Special Officer cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, against the petitioner-Trust under Section 16 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, for declaration that he is the cultivating tenant of the petition schedule property and there is no surrender of the lease-hold rights and also for grant of permanent injunction. According to the respondent herein, he is the tenant of the schedule land, having taken the same on lease in the auction held on 22.04.1971 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and subsequently, some disputes arose between him and the Managing Trustee- petitioner-land-lord. The tenant alleged that he filed suit OS No.204 of 1974 against Ramireddy, the Managing Trustee and the said Ramireddy set up his brother-in-law Donthireddy Rangareddy and got filed the suit OS No.611 of 1974 against the tenant for permanent injunction. Later, the Managing Trustee also filed ATC No.498 of 1980 and the tenant has been deposit maktha in the Central Bank of India, Kollipara. The tenant further pleaded that he raised sugarcane in 50 cents, turmeric in Ac.1.30 cents and ginningrass in 20 cents in the year 1993-94. He alleges that on 22.05.1994, the present Managing Trustee, by name Marreddy Venakta Siva Ramakrishna Reddy along with his followers, trespassed into the lands and destroyed the standing crop and the tenant gave a report to the police and thereafter, the Managing Trustee filed caveat petition stating as if the tenant executed letter of surrender on 02.06.1993 and that the tenant also surrendered the land on 31.03.1994 and delivered possession. The tenant contends that he never executed any such letter and he never delivered possession of the schedule premises to the Managing Trustee and he continued to be in possession and enjoyment as a tenant. 4. The petitioner herein-trust filed counter contending that the tenant has not been paying the rents and on 02.06.1993, the members of the Trust Board asked the tenant to vacate the schedule land and hand over possession and the tenant agreed for the same and executed a letter agreeing to vacate the schedule land by 31.03.1994 and accordingly, on that day, the tenant vacated the schedule land by receiving Rs.8,000/- through one M.Brahma Reddy in the presence of elders M.Venkatarami Reddy and others. The petitioner herein therefore pleads that ever since the Trust is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and subsequently, the tenant changed his mind due to evil advise and tried to file a suit against the petitioner herein and therefore, the petitioner lodged caveat. According to the petitioner, tenant never raised any crops subsequent to 31.03.1994. 5. In support of his contention, the tenant examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. The land-lord examined RWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.8 and Es.X.1 to X.5 were also marked. 6. On a consideration of the material available on record, the Special Officer allowed the said petition in part, declaring that the respondent herein is the cultivating tenant of the schedule land, but however, dismissed his claim for injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the land-lord/trust filed appeal in ATA No.7 of 2001. The tenant also filed appeal in ATA No.6 of 2001. By impugned order dated 10.10.2006, both the appeals were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Guntur. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord-Trust filed the present revision. 7. It is stated that the tenant has not filed any revision impugning the dismissal of his appeal ATA No.6 of 2001. It is not disputed that the respondent herein was inducted as a tenant in respect of the schedule land belonging to the petitioner/landlord in an auction held on 22.04.1971. According to the petitioner/ landlord, the tenant fell in arrears of maktha and unable to pay the same and at the instance of the members of the Trust Board, on 02.06.1993 the tenant agreed to vacate the land by 31.03.1994 and accordingly, he vacated the land and surrendered possession on that day after receiving Rs.8,000/- from the Trust Board through one M. Brahma Reddy-RW.2 in the presence of M. Venkata Ramireddy-RW.4 and others and ever since, the land-lord in pursuance to the surrender of the tenancy, has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land. The respondent/tenant on the other hand contends that he never agreed to vacate the land and he also did not surrender the land at any time and he continued to cultivate the same as a tenant. The respondent/ tenant also denied to have executed any letter agreeing to vacate the land by 31.03.1994. The Special Officer held that in view of the oral and documentary evidence, it can be said without any hesitation that the tenant voluntarily surrendered the schedule land in favour of the Managing Trustee in pursuance of the agreement executed by him Ex.B.8 by taking Rs.8,000/- from the father of RW.1 through M. Brahma Reddy. However, the Special Officer held that even if the land was surrendered voluntarily by the tenant, it is not a valid surrender in terms of Section 14 of the Andhra Tenancy Act and therefore, the tenant is entitled for declaration that he is a cultivating tenant. In the appeal, the learned District Judge held that in the absence of acceptance by the Special Officer that such surrender was voluntary and genuine, after making enquiry, any surrender cannot take effect and therefore, the possession of the land by the Trust after the alleged surrender is not legal possession. Even according to the tenant, he was dispossessed physically by the Managing Trustee and his men. The Courts below, having held that the physical possession of the schedule land is with the Trust, refused to grant injunction in favour of the tenant. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Trust would contend that it is not the case of the tenant that the surrender is contrary to the provisions of Section 14 of the Tenancy Act and is therefore, not legally valid and in the absence of any such plea, the finding recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the surrender is not valid in terms of Section 14 of the Tenancy Act, is unsustainable. He would further contend that the Courts below, having accepted the plea of the landlord that the tenant executed letter Ex.B.8 dated 02.06.1993 agreeing to vacate the land by 31.03.1994 and accordingly surrendered the tenancy on 31.03.1994 and delivered possession to the landlord, ought to have dismissed the application. According to the landlord, in pursuance of the mediation before the elders on 02.06.1993, the tenant agreed to vacate the land by 31.03.1994 and executed a letter Ex.B.8 in that regard and subsequently in pursuance of the said letter, vacated the land on 31.03.1994 and surrendered tenancy and delivered possession to the Managing Trustee after receiving Rs.8,000/- in the presence of elders. Necessary evidence was adduced by the land-lord before the Special Officer in support of the said plea and on appreciation of the said evidence, the Special Officer recorded a categorical finding to the effect that the tenant voluntarily surrendered the schedule land in favour of the Managing Trustee in pursuance of the agreement executed by him under Ex.B.8 by taking Rs.8,000/- from the father of RW.1 through Brahma reddy- RW.2. The said finding, which is in favour of the land lord, is not disturbed in the appeal i.e., ATA No.7 of 2001, which is filed by the land-lord. The learned District Judge, would not however advert to the said question as to whether or not the alleged surrender of the tenancy by the tenant in pursuance of the mediation is true, but only dealt with the aspect as to whether or not the surrender is valid in terms of Section 14 of the Tenancy Act and held that the possession of the land by the Trust after the alleged surrender by the tenant, was not a legal possession. When the landlord has specifically pleaded that the tenant executed a letter Ex.B.8 in pursuance of the mediation to surrender the land and that in terms thereof, he in fact, surrendered the tenancy and delivered possession on 31.03.1994 that too by receiving Rs.8,000/- from the landlord in the presence of elders and when the tenant has specifically denied the said plea and when the Special Officer recorded a finding on appreciation of the evidence in favour of the landlord and when the tenant has filed an appeal assailing the said finding, the appellate Court, ought to have considered the said plea on reappraisal of the evidence pertaining to the same and has to record a specific finding in that regard and then has to consider the question of validity or otherwise of such surrender in the light of Section 14 of the Tenancy Act. Without recording any finding as to the truth or otherwise of the factum of the alleged surrender, the appellate Court, without any reappraisal of the evidence, went on to hold that the possession of the land by the Trust after the alleged surrender was not a legal possession. In the circumstances, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter back to the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum Principal District Judge, Guntur for consideration of the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above and after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides. 9. The impugned judgment of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-Principal District Judge, Guntur is therefore set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of as stated above. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.03.2011 bss