HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.567/2010 DT.26-2-2010 Nagulapalli Veerabhadrarao …Petitioner V. 1. Jammi Konetirao and others. ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.567/2010 ORAL ORDER: This revision by the first respondent-tenant in ATC No.19/1998 is directed against the orders of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada dt. 27-10-2009 passed in ATA No.16/2005, whreunder learned Judge partly allowed the appeal modifying the order and decree dt. 19-8-2005 passed in ATC No.19/98 on the file of Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu by directing the first respondent-tenant to pay 30 kata bags of paddy for the total extent of Ac.7-63 cents or equivalent market price of each kata bag from 1998-99 onwards. The respondents 1 to 3 herein, who are the petitioners in ATC No.19/98, hereinafter will be referred to as “the landlords” and the revision petitioner herein, who is respondent No.1 in ATC No.19/98, hereinafter will be referred to as “the tenant”. The landlords filed ATC No.19/98 before the Special Officer- cum-Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu for fixation of fair rent of 15 bags of paddy per acre per year for the petition schedule land to an extent of Ac.7-63 cents or equivalent market price of each kata bag from the agricultural year 1998-99 onwards stating that the said property is wet land situated under the Ayacut of Yeleru reservoir in Bhadravaram village. The father of the tenant took the petition schedule land on lease from the landlords in the year 1972 on an annual rent of Rs.1200/- for the entire land of Ac.7-63 cents payable by Makara Sankranthi of every year. After the demise of the father of the tenant, the first respondent is continued as tenant in the schedule land under the same terms and conditions. Since the tenant committed default in payment of rent, the landlord filed ATC No.7/1996 for eviction. It is further stated that paddy, banana and other wet crops are raised in the petition schedule property and the tenant is raising paddy crop realizing 30 bas of paddy per year. Sugarcane is also raised, it fetches 40 tones of sugarcane. In spite of repeated demands made by the landlords, the tenant is not enhancing the rent. The tenant filed a counter stating that there is no source of water to the petition schedule land and it is a rain fed land. The yield will be 12 to 15 kata bags per acre per year and for which the tenant has to incur Rs.4000/- per acre (12 kata bags) towards manuring, transplantation and harvesting the crop and he is ready to pay 14 ½ kata bags towards fair rent for petition schedule land. The 2nd respondent in ATC remained ex parate. Before the Special Officer, on behalf of the landlords, P.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. On behalf of the tenant, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. The Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Prathipadu allowed the petition directing the tenant to pay 72 kata bags of paddy for the total extent of Ac.7-63 cents or equivalent market price of each kata bag from the year 1998-99 onwards. Questioning the same, the tenant filed an appeal, ATC No.16/2005, before the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The III Additional District Judge, Kakinada (lower appellate tribunal) by the impugned judgment after taking into consideration the evidence made available on record, fixed the fair rent at 30 kata bags of paddy for the total extent of Ac.7-63 cents or equivalent market price of each kata bag, to be paid to the landlords from 1998-99 onwards. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, the tenant filed this revision petition. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner-tenant contends that there is no water source to the petition schedule land taken on lease by the tenant and it is completely rain fed land, therefore, fixation of fair rent by the lower appellate tribunal at 30 kata bags of paddy for the entire extent cannot be justified. I do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner for the simple reason before the lower appellate tribunal, the landlords filed documents, namely, certified copy of orders dt. 23-1-2006 passed in EP No.35/05 in ATC No.19/98; reply notice dt. 18-10-2005 issued on behalf of the tenant to the landlord and also served copy of unnumbered EA in EP No.35/2005 in ATC No.19/98. In EP No.35/2005, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner for harvesting the sugarcane crop and for sale of the same and for deposit of sale proceeds. The above two documents disclose that there was paddy and sugarcane crops raised in the petition schedule land and there is also an admission that the tenant raised paddy crop in the petition schedule land. Apart from the above two documents, the tenant in the counter filed in ATC No.19/1998 mentioned that in a good rain season, the yield will be 15 kata bags per acre. The lower appellate tribunal after re-appreciating the evidence made available on record and after giving necessary deduction towards cultivation expenses, rightly allowed the appeal filed by the tenant in part by directing the tenant to pay 30 kata bags of paddy, instead of 72 kata bags as ordered by the Special Officer, for the total extent of Ac.7-63 cents or equivalent market price of each kata bag from 1998-99 onwards. It is common knowledge unless there is a regular water source is available, it is un-imagine to raise sugarcane, which requires water through out the year. In view of the same, the order passed by the lower appellate tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:26-2-2010 kmr