IIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5770 OF 2005 Between: Bontha Konda Sarveswara Rao and another …Petitioners A n d Bontha Annapurna Devi (died) per LRs Bontha Venkat Rao and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5770 OF 2005 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.09.2005 in A.T.A.No.1 of 2000, on the file of the District Judge & Appellate Authority under the A.P (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, Srikakulam, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 21.12.1999 in A.T.C.No.10 of 1994, on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein claiming to be tenants of the schedule land filed A.T.C.No.10 of 1994 seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent into Court and also to declare them as cultivating tenants. According to them, their father Bontha Krishna Murthy was the original tenant of the respondent-landlady under oral agreement of lease whereunder the annual rent payable in cash was stipulated at Rs.1,500/- and that during his lifetime the petitioners’ father paid the rents and obtained receipts and just before his death, he executed a Will bequeathing all his properties, including the schedule land in favour of the petitioners and that the petitioners’ father died in 1989. It is further pleaded by the petitioners that when they offered the rent to the respondents in 1991 she refused to receive the same and they sent the rent by pay order by registered post and it was also refused by the respondent and for the years 1992 and 1993 also, she refused to receive the rents. The respondent sent a legal notice to the petitioners alleging that petitioners’ father Krishnamurthy executed a written lease deed in her favour whereunder the rent was agreed to be paid in kind i.e., paddy of 2 garces and 27 putties every year. The petitioners sent a reply denying execution of any such mutchilaka/written lease deed by their father or the rent stipulated therein. Hence, they filed A.T.C.No.10 of 1994 seeking permission for deposit of the rents into Court. 4. The respondent landlady filed a counter contending that the petitioners’ father executed a mutchilaka agreeing to pay the rent in kind i.e., paddy and since the petitioners failed to pay the same, they became defaulters in payment of rents and hence they are liable to be evicted. While A.T.C.No.10 of 1994 was pending, the respondents also filed A.T.C.No.6 of 1985 seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenants on the ground of default in payment of rents. 5. During enquiry before the Special officer, the petitioners examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-35 and the respondent’s son was examined as R.W.1 and the mutchilaka was marked as Ex.B-1. R.Ws.2 to 4 were also examined. The respondent sought for comparison of the signatures on the mutchilaka Ex.B-1 with admitted signatures of Bontha Krishnamurthy on the Will Ex.A-1 executed by him in favour of the petitioners and the expert gave opinion stating that the signatures on both the documents were tallying. The opinion of the expert and connected documents were marked as Exs.X-1 to X-11. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Officer dismissed the petition A.T.C.No.10 of 1994. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal in A.T.A.No.1 of 2000. By the impugned order, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision. 7. It is not disputed that the respondent is the owner and landlady in respect of the petition schedule land of Ac.12-12 cents situated at Byri Singapuram village and Krishnamurthy, father of petitioners was the original tenant. According to the respondent, the original tenant was paying Rs.1,500/- as annual rent when the land revenue was only Rs.100/- or Rs.120/- per year and that subsequently when the Government increased the land revenue to Rs.200/- per acre, she had to pay Rs.2,400/- per annum for the entire land and, therefore, the original tenant Krishnamurthy, father of petitioners, executed an agreement Ex.B-1 agreeing to pay the rent in kind i.e., paddy of 2 garces and 27 putties. Though the petitioners disputed the mutchilaka Ex.B-1, the expert’s opinion Ex.B- 1 revealed that the signature of Krishnamurthy therein was tallying with the admitted signature in the Will Ex.A-1. The petitioners objected for marking of Ex.B-1 on the ground that it requires stamp duty and penalty and also registration. As seen from Ex.B-1, no rights of tenancy were created under the said document and the pre- existing right of tenancy was only reiterated with a modification in the rent and mode of its payment by stipulating that the rent be paid in kind i.e., paddy of 2 garces and 27 putties instead of cash as stipulated earlier. It is quite probable that in view of the enhancement in the land revenue payable to the Government, the landlord and tenant have agreed upon the said modification in the quantum of rent and also mode of its payment. As the said document Ex.B-1 does not create any rights afresh and contains only modification regarding the payment of rent, the same is not compulsorily registerable nor is it subject to payment of any stamp duty or penalty. 8. The petitioners contend that under Ex.A-7 receipt which is dated 11.06.1989 and subsequent to Ex.B-1 dated 30.03.1988, the respondent received payment of rent in cash in a sum of Rs.1,500/- and the same falsifies the contention of the respondent based on Ex.B-1. It is to be noted that the other receipts Exs.A-2 to A-6 were all for the period prior to the date of Ex.B-1. Ex.A- 7 is the stray and solitary receipt which is subsequent to date of Ex.B-1 for payment of rent in cash. Ex.A-7 related to the year 1989. The petitioners failed to show that they offered the rent for 1990, 1991 and 992 in kind as agreed under Ex.B-1 and that the same was refused by the respondent, even according to the petitioners they offered rent in cash i.e., Rs.1,500/- for the said period from 1990 to 1992 and the same was refused by the respondent. As the offer made by the petitioners to pay the rent in cash is contrary to the terms of Ex.B-1, the respondent was justified in refusing to receive the same. Simply because for one year 1989, the respondent received the rent in cash, the same does not obliterate the contractual obligations contained in Ex.B-1 which obligates the petitioners to pay the rent in kind i.e., paddy of 2 garces and 27 putties. The failure of the petitioners to comply with the said obligation contained under Ex.B-1 for the years 1991 and 1992 certainly makes them defaulters in payment of rents. The petitioners, are, therefore, not entitled for the reliefs prayed for, as they have committed default in payment of the rents. The impugned orders, dismissing their application by the Special Officer and confirmation of the same by the Appellate Authority do not, therefore, call for any interference. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st July, 2011 Lrkm.