IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3463 OF 2010 Between : Tamma Siva Rami Reddy @ Tractor Bullebai .... PETITIONER A N D Tamma Vana Malleswari. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3463 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Judgment and decree, dated 31.05.2010 in A.T.A.No.4 of 2010, on the file of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby, order and decree dated 22.01.2010 in A.T.C.No.1 of 2009, on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, were confirmed. 2. The petitioner herein is the appellant and the respondent herein is the respondent in the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner and the respondent are son and mother. The respondent is the absolute owner of the petition schedule land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.78 cents. Out of it, respondent got Ac.0.68 cents of land by way of gift from her mother and later she purchased an extent of Ac.0.14 cents of land from one Movva Punnaiah. As the respondent was housewife, the petitioner has been cultivating the petition schedule land on lease for the last ten years by paying Maktha @ Rs.3000/- per year under oral lease. There is no practice of passing rent receipts for maktha received by the respondent. A dispute arose between the petitioner and his brother with regard to purchase of properties of the family after 07.08.2009. The petitioner and his brother set up separate families. As the brother of the petitioner was not evincing interest to look after the properties, the petitioner filed O.S.No.124 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, for partition and the same is pending. The differences also arose between the wife of the petitioner and respondent. Therefore, the respondent is trying to evict the petitioner high-handedly and to alienate the petition schedule land contrary to the statutory tenancy of the petitioner. Hence, this petition to protect his right i.e., statutory tenancy under the Provisions of A.P.Tenancy Act. 4. The respondent filed counter denying the material allegations in the petition and contending inter alia that the respondent acquired the property under a registered will, executed by Bheemavarapu Kanakamma to an extent of Ac.0.64 cents, and, after the death of said Kanakamma, the respondent became the absolute owner of the property and enjoying the same. Later the respondent purchased Ac 0.14 cents of land under a registered sale deed, dated 12.07.1995, which is adjacent to the land referred under the Will. Thus, the respondent became the owner of the schedule land and cultivating the same personally. The respondent never leased out the schedule property to anybody at any point time. The respondent raised Maize crop in the petition schedule land after obtaining crop loan from the bank. Thus, the petitioner was no way concerned with the petition schedule land and he never in possession of the same in any capacity including as a tenant, and hence he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been raised by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner is the cultivating tenant of the petition schedule property? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the injunction as prayed for? 3. To what relief?” 6. During enquiry, the petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on his behalf and got marked Exs.P1 to P.30 and on behalf of the respondent the respondent herself was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 to R.22. 7. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that he was actually cultivating the land as a tenant and there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant and accordingly dismissed the petition. On appeal, the said findings were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 8. The powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are supervisory in nature to see whether the Tribunals are acting within the parameters of law or within the jurisdiction conferred on it. If both the Tribunals gave perverse findings, then it can be a ground to interfere by this Court. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon admissible evidence or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration. 9. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent is not in dispute. The respondent is no other than the mother of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant is seriously in dispute, the burden is heavily on the petitioner to establish that he is cultivating the land as a tenant. 10. According to the petitioner, he is cultivating the land in an extent of Ac 0.90 cents in Kothabommuvaripalem, for the last ten years prior to filing of tenancy petition. The Tribunals below have not placed any implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, which is highly improbable to believe his evidence for the reason that at the time of taking the lands on lease, the petitioner was aged about 19 years. That finding cannot be said to be improbable and incorrect. P.W.2 is the owner of the Tractor, and his evidence is based upon the information received from some other persons. Therefore, his evidence is hit by rule of hearsay. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3 he is a coolie said to be working under P.W.1. The trial Court as well as appellate Court has not placed any reliance because there was no other evidence to show that the petitioner was cultivating the petition schedule land. 12. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that for the purpose of lifting out the water for raising the crops, the petitioner purchased the motor under Ex.P.1-Cash bill, dated 09.03.1994 of K.L.N.Prasad Agency. If that is taken into consideration, the case of the petitioner cannot be believed. According to him, the petitioner has taken the lands on lease in the year 1998. There is no need to purchase a motor prior to taking the lands on lease. It is highly improbable to believe Ex.P.1 that P.W.1 purchased the motor at the age of 13 or 14 years. The land revenue receipts, electricity bills and fertilizer receipts, would clearly go to show that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of the some lands. The Tribunals have not relied on those documents for the reason that they do not contain any survey number of land and in particular the petition schedule lands. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner has no other land, it can be inferred that the electricity bills, receipt for purchase of fertilizers and vouchers for selling produces must be relating to the petition schedule property only. But, that cannot be accepted because even though the petitioner was not having any land of his own, but the fact remains that he may be cultivating the lands on lease. For that reason, it cannot lead to an irresistible conclusion that the documents filed by the petitioner are relating to the land in question. Similarly the petitioner has not filed any document to show that he has been paying Maktha to the respondent right from inception. Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish that he was a tenant in respect of the petition schedule land in question belonging to his mother. Therefore, the concurrent findings need no interference by this Court as the appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse or the findings are not based upon the admissible evidence. 13. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J MARCH 22, 2011 YVL