THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3163 of 2007 Dated:- 02nd February, 2011 Between:- Toleti Subba Rao …Petitioner AND Yerramilli Ramabhadra Bhanu Murthy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3163 of 2007 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2007 passed in A.T.A.No.32 of 2005 by the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, (‘lower appellate Court’, for brevity) whereby and whereunder, the order dated 29.08.2005 passed in A.T.C.No.16 of 1999 by the Special Officer – cum – Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta (‘the Special Officer’, for brevity), has been reversed. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord of the land admeasuring Acs.2.20 cents in E.S.No.123/6 and Acs.0.03 cents in E.S.No.123/7 situated at Vudimudi village, Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District (petition schedule lands). The relationship of the petitioner and the respondent is not in dispute. The respondent filed an application under Section 13 and 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956, seeking eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule lands alleging inter alia that the petitioner has been cultivating his lands on annual rent of 50 kata bags of paddy payable by 15 of January every year and that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and executed a letter in favour of the respondent undertaking to pay the arrears within 30th April, 1997 on 30.09.1996 and since he committed default in payment of rents, the tenancy is liable to be terminated and that the respondent is entitled to resume the possession of the petition schedule lands. 3. The petitioner herein filed a counter mainly contending that he never committed default in payment of agreed rent to the respondent and that the agreed rent is only 30 kata bags of paddy payable by Sankranthi day of every year and that since his fathers time, he has been cultivating the petition schedule lands. It is also his contention that since the respondent is an employee of the defence service, his wife Bhanumathi @ Banamma used to come to Vudimudi village in the month of January every year and used to collect the rents from him without passing any receipts. It is also his case that the respondent came to Vudimudi village in January, 1996 and obtained his signature on some whitepapers threatening him otherwise to vacate him from the petition schedule lands and that due to pressure of the respondent, he signed on those blank whitepapers and non-judicial stamp papers in the presence of Kadali Laxmanarao, Adimulam Krishnamurthy and Toleti Sesha Syanmalarao. It is also his case that in the month of January 1997 and 1998, the respondent came to Vudimudi village and he paid the rents to the respondent and that the respondent, without passing any receipts, received the rents in the presence of Toleti Sesha Syamalarao, Kadali Laxmanarao and Adimulam Krishnamurthy and that the respondent had colluded with one Rani Sreerama Murthy who is a chronic litigant in the village and both of them have fabricated some documents for the purpose of evicting him from the petition schedule land. It is also his case that one Venkat Rao and one Sesharao are offering heavy amount to purchase the petition schedule lands from the respondent and that since then, the respondent is trying to evict him. His further case is that he filed A.T.C.No.18 of 1998 before the competent Court and obtained ad-interim injunction against the respondent and that the said injunction order is in force and that this petition is filed by the respondent as a counterblast to said A.T.C.No.18 of 1998. 4. On behalf of the respondent herein, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.P.1 – Photostat copy of letter dated 30.09.1996 was marked. On behalf of the petitioner herein, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Ex.R.1 – Photostat copy of order in A.T.C.No.18 of 1998 dated 26.10.2004 was marked. 5. The Special Officer, on appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the respondent failed to prove that the agreed rent is 50 kata bags per annum and that Ex.P.1 does not show the agreed rent as 50 kata bags and that the respondent received Rs.9,787.50 ps. towards 30 kata bags for the year 1998-99 and these circumstances show that the agreed rent is only 30 kata bags of paddy per annum. It was also held that the respondent filed O.S.No.65 of 1999 for recovery of arrears of rent from the petitioner for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 and subsequently, filed another suit in O.S.No.293 of 1999 for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 and specifically pleaded that he had received Rs.9,787.50 ps towards 30 kata bags of paddy for the year 1998-99 without adjusting the same towards the rents of the earlier years and that acceptance of rents for the year 1998- 99 by him would telltale that he received the rents for the previous years. It was also observed that when the petitioner had received rent of Rs.9,787.50 ps, i.e., cost of 30 kata bags towards rent, his contention that the rent is 50 kata bags falls to ground. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the Special Officer disbelieved the version of the respondent and dismissed the ATC. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent/landlord filed ATA before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court, on re- appreciation of the evidence, held that when the tenant had admittedly signed in Ex.P.1 – Photostat copy of letter dated 30.09.1996, burden lies on him to prove under what circumstances he signed in Ex.P.1 and execution of Ex.P.1 itself proves that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents. Holding thus, the lower appellate Court reversed the order of the Special Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant filed this revision. 6. The main contention of Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Special Officer has properly appreciated the evidence in correct perspective having taken into consideration the conduct of the parties and the prevailing rents and that the findings of the Special Officer are based on well reasoning and that the lower appellate Court has set aside the order of the Special Officer without proper appreciation of evidence. It is also his submission that the lower appellate Court had not taken into consideration the dismissal of the suits filed by the respondent and the fact that he failed to prove that the agreed rent was only 30 kata bags per annum. He further submitted that payment of Rs.9,787.50 ps, by the petitioner to the respondent towards the value of 30 kata bags for the year 1998-99, proves that the contention of the respondent/landlord that annual rent is 50 kata bags is totally false and he had taken all false pleas only for the purpose of evicting the petitioner from the petition schedule lands. 7. Per contra, Sri M.Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submits that the respondent, after dismissal of the suits referred above, carried the matter in the appeal in A.S.Nos.54 and 56 of 2005 which were allowed and that the findings of the lower appellate Court clearly proves that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rents to the landlord. It is also his submission that when the petitioner has executed Ex.P.1 and admittedly in the civil suit proceedings when it was held that he had committed default in payment of rents, it would become immaterial whether the annual rent was 30 or 50 kata bags of paddy per annum. 8. Unfortunately, the copies of judgments in A.S.Nos.54 and 56 of 2005 are not made available to this Court. Similarly, original of Ex.P.1 is also not filed along with this petition since it was filed in the Original Suit. It appears that when the landlord himself admitted that he received Rs.9,787.50 ps for 30 kata bags of paddy towards the rent for the years 1998-99, he cannot be permitted to say that the rent was 50 kata bags during the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. As far as the annual rent is concerned, I am of the view that the appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate Court appears to be not based on record and are perverse and, therefore, liable to be set aside. However in the absence of the original of Ex.P.1 and the certified copies of the judgments in A.S.Nos.54 and 56 of 2005, I feel that the matter cannot be taken to its logical end without re- appreciation of entire evidence on record with fresh evidence to be let in by the parties in the interest of justice. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded back to the Special Officer, i.e., Special Officer – cum – Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, for re- appreciation of entire evidence on record. The parties, if so advised, may lead fresh evidence in support of their contentions. It is made clear that the learned Special Officer – cum – Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, shall dispose of the matter basing on the evidence on record, without being influenced in any manner by the observations made supra. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 02nd February, 2011 Bvv