THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2020 & 2021 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: 1 Aggrieved by the order passed in A.T.A.No.48 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada dated 26.09.2005 confirming the order of the learned Special Officer- cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada in ATC No.4 of 1989 dated 12.10.1998 petitioner filed CRP No.2020 of 2006; and aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.209 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada dated 26.09.2005 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada in O.S.No.80 of 1992, the petitioner filed the CRP No.2021 of 2006. 2 For brevity and better understanding, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in the trial court. 3 The petitioner in CRP No.2020 of 2006 is the petitioner in ATC No.4 of 1989, which is the subject matter of A.T.A.No.48 of 1998. The petitioner filed the said ATC No.4 of 1989 against the respondents seeking a declaration that the petitioner is the tenant for the petition schedule land and in case the property will be sold, the petitioner is having right of pre-emption to purchase the same under section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 and to restrain the first respondent by issuing injunction from interfering with the possession of the petition schedule land except through process of law and for costs. The second respondent was added as party as per order dated 21.02.1995 in I.A.No.454 of 1995 and respondents 3 and 4 were added as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent as per the orders dated 17.10.1996. 4 It is the contention of the second respondent that he is the owner of the petition schedule land and leased out the same during the period 1987-88 to the petitioner on an yearly maktha of 40 bags of paddy payable on or before 15th January of every year. The petitioner, when he paid maktha for the year 1988-89, obtained receipt from him and subsequently committed default in payment of rent and that this respondent already filed ATC No.12 of 1992 on the file of the Special Officer, Kakinda seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule land. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule land on the ground of default in payment of rents. 5 The first respondent filed his counter alleging that the second respondent is neither the owner of the petition schedule property nor the petitioner is a tenant under the second respondent. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent. 6 The trial court in ATC No.4 of 1989 held that even though the second respondent admitted that the petitioner is a tenant under him, the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the second respondent even though he is in possession of the petition schedule property as tenant; as there is no dispute regarding the landlord whether respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 and as the petitioner denied that the second respondent is his landlord and further as he failed to prove that the first respondent is his landlord in respect of the petition schedule land, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The above said finding of the trial court is based on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, Exs.A.1 to A.3, R.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.B.1 to B.16. 8 Insofar as the CRP No.2021 of 2006 is concerned, the petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.No.80 of 1992, which is the subject matter of A.S.No.209 of 1998. The first respondent filed the said O.S.No.80 of 1992 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.24,624-00 towards the value of maktha of 40 bags of paddy for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 at the rate of Rs.150/- Rs.170/- and Rs.225/- respectively and interest thereon with subsequent interest and for costs. Respondents/plaintiffs 2 to 7 were added as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent/plaintiff as per the orders dated 16.12.2004 in I.A.No.1344 of 2004 of the appellate Court. 9 It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is the owner of the plaint schedule land and leased out the same during the period 1987- 88 to the petitioner/defendant on an yearly maktha of 40 bags of paddy payable on or before 15th January of every year. The petitioner/defendant, when he paid maktha for the year 1988-89, obtained receipt from him and subsequently committed default in payment of rent for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 and that this petitioner/defendant filed ATC No.4 of 1989 on the file of the Special Officer, Kakinda against one Akella Sambasiva Rao collusively without impleading him and obtained an order of injunction against the said Sambasivarao. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.24,624/- at the rate of Rs.150/- per bag during 1989- 90, at Rs.170/- per bag during 1990-91 and at Rs.225/- per bag during 1991-92 with interest at 12% p.a. 10 The petitioner filed written statement alleging that the plaintiff is neither the owner of the plaint schedule property nor the petitioner is a tenant under him. There is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner/defendant and the plaintiff and that one Akella Sambasivarao is the owner of the suit schedule property and that as the said Akella Sambasivarao was not made as a party to the suit, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party. 11 The trial court in O.S.No.80 of 1992 held that the plaintiff established his title over the suit schedule property and hence there is no necessity for the plaintiff to join the said Sambasivarao as a party to the suit and that the plaintiff also established that the petitioner/defendant is tenant under him and he failed to pay the maktha to the plaintiff for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 and accordingly decreed the suit as prayed for. The above said finding of the trial court is based on the evidence of P.W.1, Exs.A.1 to A.15, D.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.B.1 and B.2. The appellate court, while reappreciating the entire evidence, confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court. Hence the present revision. 12 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Courts below should have held that A.Sambasiva Rao is the person who actually leased out the suit schedule land to the petitioner and that he has been receiving rents from the petitioner and that without impleading the said Sambasivarao, the suit is not maintainable and further contended that the Tribunals below should have seen that it is not open to the Tenancy Tribunals to adjudicate upon the rival claim of the implead petitioner and that the Tenancy Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the rival claims regarding title. 13 Now the point for consideration is whether the findings of the Tribunals below are sustainable? 14 It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not make out any case against the first respondent that he is the statutory tenant under the first respondent. It is the contention of the second respondent that he leased out the petition schedule land to the petitioner. However, a perusal of the finding of the Tribunal below goes to show that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the first respondent and the petitioner and therefore, the Tribunals below came to the correct conclusion in deciding the main issue on hand. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this court that legal representatives of the second respondent filed ATC No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada against the present petitioner under section 13 (a) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act for eviction on the ground of default in payment of maktha and also denied the title of the landlord and filed Xerox copy of the petition in ATC No.3 of 2010 wherein it is stated as under: “The petitioner is the owner of the schedule property. The petitioner got the above property under registered Will dated 17.11.2001 executed by his father Akella Rama Sastry in a sound and disposing state of mind. Akella Rama Sastry died on 02.02.2004. After the death of Rama Sastry the petitioner alone became the absolute owner of the property. A Xerox copy of death extract of Rama Sastry is filed as document No.1. The original registered Will executed by Rama Sastry is in the custody of other sharers. Hence Xerox copy of registration extract of the same is filed as document No.2. The respondent has taken the schedule property on lease during the period 1987-88 from the father of the petitioner Akella Rama Sastry on an yearly maktha of 40 bags payable on or before 15th January every year. The land is being irrigated by Godavari Channel and it is a double crop wet land. The land is capable of raising two crops a year and the respondent is also railsing pyru crop. The respondent committed default in payment of maktha from 1989-90 onwards. When the respondent paid maktha for 1988-89 the respondent obtained the maktha receipt from the father of petitioner. When the father of the petitioner has been demanding maktha the respondent filed ATC 4 of 1989 against Akella Samba Sivarao who is no way concerned with the land falsely claiming that he is a cultivating tenant under the said Samba Sivarao on an yearly maktha of 10 bags and the property should be sold to him etc. The father of petitioner joined as party in the above ATC 4/89 and contested that it is his exclusive property and the respondent is a cultivating tenant under him only on an yearly maktha of 40 bags and the same is payable on 15th January every year. The father of petitioner also filed a suit O.S.80/1992 for recovery of maktha for the years 1990 to 1992 against the respondent. Both ATC 4/89 and the suit OS 80/92 tried simultaneously and the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge held that the respondent is a cultivating tenant under the father of petitioner on an yearly maktha of 40 bags. The suit O.S.80/92 was also decreed in favour of father of the petitioner holding that the respondent is in arrears of maktha. As against the decree and judgment in ATC 4/89 the respondent preferred appeal ATA 48/1995 and as against the decree and judgment in O.S.80/92 the respondent preferred appeal A.S.209/1988 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. Both the appeals were dismissed confirming the orders of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. Against the said decree and judgments the respondent preferred second appeal to Hon’ble High Court and the same is pending. Samba Siva Rao did not prefer any appeals against decree and judgments and it became final. Served copy of judgment in O.S.80/92, A.S.209/98, ATC 4/89 and ATA 48/95 are filed as documents 3 to 6. For recovery of arrears of maktha the father of petitioner filed O.S.720 of 90, O.S.1285/99 and O.S.1512/2000 against the respondent. Even after disposal of Tenancy appeal also the respondent failed to pay makthas to the petitioner or deposit the same into court.” 16 It is also submitted during the course of arguments that the petitioner herein also filed a detailed counter in ATC No.3 of 2010 asserting all his contentions and however, in view of the filing of ATC No.3 of 2010 it is required to pass appropriate orders while disposing of this revision petition. 17 The owner of the petition schedule property is claiming title over the schedule property and filed petition for eviction on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rents. The finding in the above said ATC No.3 of 2010 will certainly give finality about the rights of both parties in the schedule property. Therefore, the revision petitioner can take appropriate steps and work out his remedies, if any, in the ATC No.3 of 2010 as a tenant. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is not precluded to raise any pleas available to him in his defence in that ATC No.3 of 2010 and therefore the orders in this revision petition will not in any manner be detrimental to his rights and cause prejudice to his contentions to be raised in the ATC No.3 of 2010. 18 With the above observations, these two revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. --------------------- K.S. APPA RAO, J. 19.08.2011 Kvsn