THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4578 of 2006 Dated: 15-7-2010 Oral order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is by the tenants of an extent of Ac.2-50 cents of agricultural land. The 1st respondent herein filed ATC No. 10 of 2001 under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 to evict the revision petitioners from the petition schedule land and to deliver possession to 1st respondent, principally on the ground that the revision petitioners committed willful default in payment of rent for over three years. The revision petitioners admitted the tenancy but denied committing default. On a cogent analysis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal of the first instance, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Officer, by the order dated 12-4-2004 in ATC No. 10 of 2001 found willful default to have been committed and allowed the application of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioners filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam who was also the appellate authority under the Act, in ATA No.4 of 2004. On an independent appreciation of evidence on record and on an appropriate appellate scrutiny, the appellate tribunal concurred with the findings of the primary tribunal as to the revision petitioners having been committed willful default, confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Thereagainst, this revision is filed. Inter alia, it is pleaded in this revision and contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that as the property in question belongs to Borreswaraswamy Devasthanam and is endowment property, proceedings for eviction from the endowment properties are excluded from the jurisdiction of the tribunals under the Tenancy Act, in view of the specific provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. This contention that is stated to be rejected. In none of the Forums, primary or the appellate tribunal, was it ever pleaded that the tribunals under the Tenancy Act no jurisdiction, since the lands are endowment lands. Exclusion of jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunals is contingent upon the land being endowments land. To plead and establish patent lack of jurisdiction, there should be a factual plea and establishment of the claim that the land is endowment land. Even in this revision, no factual foundation is laid except a bald claim that the land is endowment land. In fact before the fora below, the parties proceeded under the assumption that the Tribunals under the Tenancy Act have the jurisdiction and that the 1st respondent herein is the landlord. It was not even claimed that the original application filed by the 1st respondent before the primary tribunal, ATC 10 of 2001 was mis-instituted as the 1st respondent was not the owner of the property and that the proceedings should have been initiated by the Devasthanam in question. For all the aforesaid reasons, the singular contention urged in this revision to impeach the concurrent findings and conclusions of the primary and appellate tribunals culminating in the rejection of the appeal by the order of the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam in ATA No. 2 of 2004, does not merit acceptance. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 15th July, 2010. GRR