HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1430 of 2006 DATED: 17.02.2010 BETWEEN: Adabala Satyanarayana .. Petitioner And Surampudi Chandrarao .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1430 of 2006 ORDER:- This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decree and Judgment dated 16.12.2005 passed in A.T.A.No.175 of 2000 by the Appellate Authority under the A.P. (A.A) Tenancy Act (Principal District Judge), East Godavari at Rajahmundry which was preferred against the order dated 20.11.2000 in A.T.C.No.23 of 1997 passed by the Special Officer (Junior Civil Judge), Alamuru. 2. The revision petitioner is the respondent before the learned Appellate authority (Principal District Judge). He filed A.T.C.No.23 of 1997 seeking eviction of the respondent on the following grounds viz. that the respondent herein is the tenant and committed default in payment of rent and willfully denied the title of the landlord. The learned Special Officer ordered eviction of the respondent/tenant on both the grounds alleged by the revision petitioner, against which the respondent filed A.T.A. No.175 of 2000 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority reversed the finding of the Special Officer by his judgment dated 16.12.2005 in A.T.A.No.175 of 2000, against which, the present revision is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. Though served with notice, none appears for the respondent. 4. The revision petitioner filed A.T.C.No.23 of 1997 claiming the schedule mentioned property as his ancestral property and that it belongs to his father Venkanna, the revision petitioner used to manage the properties, his father died in the year 1989, whereupon, he leased out the petition schedule land to the respondent on his agreeing to pay rent of 12 bags of paddy per year payable by Makarasankranti every year. According to him, the lease is an oral and was entered into 40 years prior to the filing of the ATC and that the respondent committed default in payment of rent since five years prior to the filing of the A.T.C. Before filing A.T.C., the revision petitioner issued notice to the respondent to pay arrears of rent and to vacate the land, for which the respondent gave a reply contending that the petitioner agreed to sell the petition schedule land to him for an amount of Rs.8,880/- and accordingly he executed an agreement to sell, dated 14.05.1979 on which date he paid an amount of R.6,750/- as advance and the balance of sale price was agreed to be paid within 24 years under the said agreement to sell and he was put in possession of the land on 14.05.1979. That in spite of repeated demands made by him, the revision petitioner was postponing the execution of the registered sale deed in his favour and therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that he also filed O.S.No.156 of 1997 for specific performance of the said agreement to sell. 5. Before the Special Officer, the revision petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 besides examining PWs.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. Whereas, the respondent himself was examined as DW1 besides examining DWs.2 to 5 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.11. 6. The learned Special Officer, on a consideration of the entire evidence oral and documentary held that the revision petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant under him and that the respondent-tenant willfully denied the title of the landlord. The learned Special Officer also further held that the respondent committed default in payment of rent and accordingly ordered eviction of the respondent. 7. The learned Special Officer considered the following facts viz. that admittedly the land belongs to the revision petitioner, Ex.A.4-legal notice was issued demanding the respondent to pay the arrears of rent and vacate the schedule mentioned land, the respondent issued Ex.B.6 legal notice stating that the revision petitioner agreed to sell the schedule mentioned land to him under Ex.B.3-agreement to sell dated 14.05.1979 for an amount of Rs. 8,880/- and was put in possession of the said land by the revision petitioner on the same date. The learned Special Officer also noticed that the respondent filed O.S.No.156 of 1997 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.05.1979. Only after filing of the A.T.C.No.23 of 1997 by the revision petitioner and prior to that as already mentioned, the revision petitioner issued Ex.A.4- legal notice to the respondent. The learned Special Officer also took notice of the fact that the revision petitioner filed O.S.Nos.215 of 1997 and 34 of 2000 for recovery of arrears of rent. He pointed out in his order that the respondent was only paying land revenue under the cover of Ex.A.3 consisting of 12 land revenue receipts and the respondent, who contends that he was put in possession of the land under Ex.B.3-agreement to sell was not paying any land revenue to the petition schedule property. He also mentioned in his order that the Revenue Divisional Officer issued Ex.A.2-title deed in respect of the schedule mentioned land in favour of the revision petitioner. Another important factor which requires mention in this context is O.S.No.156 of 1997 filed by the respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.05.1997 was simultaneously disposed of along with A.T.C.No.23 of 1997 by one and the same Junior Civil Judge- Special Officer, Alamuru and the learned Special Officer-Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru by his judgment dated 20.11.2000 in O.S.No.156 of 1997 held that the alleged agreement to sell – Ex.B.3, Exs.B.4 and B.5 discharge pronotes , Exs.B.9 and B.10 is part payment endorsement in Ex.A.1 and A.4, A-2 and A-5 are fabricated and concocted by the respondent for the purpose of filing the suit for specific performance. This apart, PWs.2 and 3 had also categorically spoken before the learned Special Officer that the respondent is a tenant under the revision petitioner and the tenancy which is oral commenced 20 years prior to the commencement of the present litigation. Thus, there is abundant oral and documentary proof of the fact that the revision petitioner is the owner of the schedule mentioned land and that the respondent is a tenant under him. O.S.No.215 of 1997 filed by the revision petitioner for recovery of rent was decreed on 29.08.2003 and O.S.No.34 of 2000 was decreed on 26.10.2006. Both the suits were decreed while ATA was pending on the file of the appellate authority-District Judge, Rajahmundry and the other suit filed by the revision petitioner for recovery of rent in O.S.No.403 of 2004 was pending by then. Strangely, the learned District Judge gave an erroneous finding that the revision petitioner did not file any suit for recovery of rent. He also erroneously observed that O.S.No.156 of 1997 filed by the respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.05.1979 was decreed. As a matter of fact, the said suit was dismissed and the said fact was also mentioned by the learned Special Officer in his order in A.T.C.No.23 of 1997. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner filed additional material papers at the time of hearing of the revision which are received in evidence and they are copies of orders, decrees, judgment and plaints. Ex.A.8 is the copy of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.156 of 1997 dated 20.11.2000. Ex.A.9 is the copy of the decree in O.S.No.215 of 1997 dated 29.08.2003. Ex.A.10 is the copy of the decree in A.S.No.145 of 2005 dated 6.11.2007. Ex.A.11 is the copy of the order in I.A.No.3267 of 2007 in A.S.No.145 of 2005 dated 04.07.2008. Ex.A.12 is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.34 of 2000 dated 17.01.2000. Ex.A.13 is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.403 of 2004 dated 09.12.2004. Ex.A.14 is the copy of the decree in O.S.No.34 of 2000 dated 26.10.2006. All these documents clearly establish that the findings of the learned appellate authority in A.T.A.No. 175 of 2000 were factually and legally incorrect. Therefore, this Court in exercise of it’s powers under Article 227 of the Constitution can interfere with the finding. 9. Accordingly, the judgment dated 16.12.2005 passed by the learned appellate authority in A.T.A.No.175 of 2000 is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The respondent-tenant is directed to vacate the schedule motioned land within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 17.02.2010 kvrm