IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REIVSION PETITION No.2077 OF 2005 BETWEEN Kottapalli Krishna Prasad. …PETITIONER AND Nuthakki Mahalakshmamma. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.S.R. HEMANTH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. K.V. SUBBA REDDY The court made the following order: ORDER: This revision is by the tenant against the order dated 31.12.2004 passed in CMA.No.45 of 2003 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Appellate Authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The respondent herein was the landlord, who filed ATC.No.2 of 2002 before the Special Officer cum I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam seeking possession from the petitioner of an extent of Ac.1.35 cents in R.S.No.240/3, 240/6, 240/5-B and 240/4. The aforesaid ATC was filed on the ground that the petitioner/tenant has committed willful default in payment of Dalva 5 bags of paddy and the default from 2001 is continuing warranting eviction of the petitioner. The tenant filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, denying the default and has stated that there is no specific date mentioned within which the deposit is required to be made and that he had deposited the amount for the year 2001 to the credit of the District Court in CMA.No.115 of 1997 vide challan No.292 and that the landlord has already withdrawn the said amount and he, therefore, claims that there is no default. 3. Learned Special Officer has examined the matter in the light of the evidence adduced by both sides and the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act and found that the amount said to have been deposited by the tenant in Ex.A2 – account ledger extract shows that the deposit is dated 19.12.2001 and the said deposit is with respect to Rs.900/-. But in the absence of any specific date mentioned for deposit, under the provisions of the Act the deposit has to be made before end of May 2001. Thus, the deposit of amount towards end of December was found to be clearly willful. Eviction of the petitioner/tenant was accordingly ordered. On appeal, the learned District Judge has once again re-examined the matter and has confirmed the said default by agreeing with the findings of the Special Officer. The said concurrent findings are questioned by the petitioner in this revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 5. While the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his submission that the said deposit was between the same parties and the landlord has withdrawn the same and even if there is a default the same does not amount to willful default. I am afraid the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the concurrent findings reached against the petitioner by both the Courts below. I am not persuaded to take a different view from the one recorded by both the Courts below, as the default is adjudicated by the Courts and the only question remains is whether it was willful. The fact that the appellate Court also found that not only the said deposit is beyond the period prescribed under the Act but the default with respect to four bags of paddy for Dalva for the month of May 2001 still continues and remains due. The said default, therefore, was rightly found to be willful. The impugned orders do not warrant any interference. The revision is accordingly dismissed. However, as the petitioner has raised the crops as of now based upon the interim order pending CRP, the petitioner is granted time till 30.06.2010 to vacate and hand over the possession of the petition schedule land to the respondents. In default, the respondents shall be free to invoke the provisions of the Act for execution of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 19, 2010 DSK