IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21st) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5756 of 2009 Between: Morla Chowdaraiah (died) & others … Petitioners And: Agnihotram Narasimhacharyulu … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5756 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.10.2009 in ATA No.4 of 2007 on the file of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed confirming the order dated 26.06.2007 in ATC No.7 of 2005 on the file of the Tenancy Special Officer cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed ATC No.7 of 2005 against the first petitioner under section 13(A)(F) of the A.P. (AA) Tenancy Act for eviction on the ground of default in payment of maktha. The petitioners 2 to 8 are subsequently impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased first petitioner, who died during pendency of the proceedings. 4. According to the respondent/landlord, the schedule lands originally belonged to his mother and she died on 31.12.1989 and that the respondent filed ATC No.34 of 1990 for eviction and the same was dismissed and the appeal ATA No.66 of 1996 was also dismissed on 17.01.2000. Subsequently, the respondent filed ATC No.5 of 2002 for fixation of fair rent and the matter was settled before the Lok Adalath wherein, the tenant agreed to pay 34 bags of paddy for the entire land before Sivaratri (Maghabahula Amavasya) every year. The respondent alleges that in the year 2004-05, first petitioner raised BPT paddy and harvested the same, but did not pay maktha and having waited for a considerable time, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 13.06.2005 calling upon him to vacate the land, for which the first petitioner issued a reply with false allegations. It is stated that subsequently on 20.07.2005, the first petitioner issued another notice, enclosing demand draft for Rs.16,000/-, which was equivalent to cost of 32 bags of paddy and the respondent herein returned the same and subsequently, filed the present application for eviction. 5. The first petitioner herein/tenant filed counter, admitting the tenancy and also previous litigation, but however contending that the maktha payable was only 32 bags but not 34 bags and that during the year 2004-05, the market price of paddy was only Rs.500/- per bag. He further pleaded that he could not thrash the paddy heap which was in the middle of land for want of access as there was standing maize crop in the surrounding lands. Thus, according to the petitioners, the default was not willful but maktha could not be paid in time before Sivaratri day, as the land and crops thereon was inaccessible. 6. During the enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked on behalf of the petitioners and RW.1 was examined and Exs.R.1 to R.16 were marked on behalf of the respondent. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Officer, held that the rent was not paid before the due date agreed upon and instead of delivering paddy, cash value of rent was offered six months after due date and therefore, the tenant has committed default in payment of rent and rendering himself liable for eviction. The learned District Judge in the appeal confirmed the said finding of the Special Officer. 7. It is not disputed that as per the terms of the lease, maktha was payable before Sivaratri day. It is also not disputed that the maktha was agreed to be 34 bags of paddy before the Lok Adalath in ATC No.5 of 2002, which was filed by the landlord for fixation of the fair rent. Though the tenant contended that the maktha was only 32 bags, the said plea remains unsubstantiated. 8. Insofar as the year 2004-05 is concerned, the maktha was not delivered before the due date of Sivatrati and the cash value was sent by way of demand draft in a sum of Rs.16,000/-, which according to the landlord, did not represent the market price value of 34 bags of paddy. The plea of the tenant that he offered to pay cash in lieu of paddy soon after harvesting the crop and the landlord refused to receive the same also remains totally unsubstantiated. It is not disclosed as to on what date the tenant made such an offer and what amount was offered to be paid and when the same was refused. Admittedly, the tenant has not sent the cash value of maktha by way of demand draft immediately after refusal of the landlord, nor did he chose to deposit the same before the Tenancy Tribunal. He also did not issue any notice to the landlord. It was only after the landlord issued a notice dated 13.06.2005 that the tenant has chosen to sent the demand draft for Rs.16,000/- on 19.07.2005, which was about six months after the due date. The plea of the tenant that he could not harvest the crop in time because there was standing crop in the surrounding lands making inaccessible for him to reach the schedule land is simply unacceptable and unconvincing besides remaining unsubstantiated. Infact, the said plea contradicts with his other contentions that he harvested the crop and immediately thereafter he offered maktha in cash value but the landlord refused to receive it. It is unbelievable that having harvested the crop, the tenant would have left it to remain in the field without transporting the same out of the schedule land, when he was aware of the impending cultivation of the surrounding lands. Even assuming for a moment that he could not harvest the crop on account of the existing standing crops in the surrounding lands, the same is wholly irrelevant and does not save the tenant from the consequences of the default. The said contingency that the crop become inaccessible even if true, cannot be considered to be an act of vis-major, that could come to the rescue of the tenant. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the courts below holding that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent and therefore, rendered himself for liable for eviction do not call for any interference, as they do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The petitioners are therefore directed to vacate the schedule land and deliver possession to the respondent/landlord by the end of January 2012. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.12.2011 bss