THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3574 of 2009 Date:20th October, 2009 Between: Khagga Thirupathamma …Petitioner and 1. Sistla Viswanadham & Ors. …Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3574 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.06.2009 passed in A.T.A.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge, Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal District Judge dismissed the tenancy appeal and confirmed the order dated 22.02.2008 passed in A.T.C.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the Special Officer under A.P. Tenancy Act-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur. 2. The petitioner is the tenant of the A.T.C. schedule mentioned property. The petitioner filed A.T.C.No.15 of 1986 before the tenancy tribunal under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking injunction against the respondents therein. Her pleading before the Tenancy Tribunal was that her father took the land on lease from Dr.P.Mahalaxmi and after death of her father, she continued the tenancy and paid rents to Dr.P.Mahalaxmi. After the death of Dr.P.Mahalakshmi, respondents 1 and 2 therein made counter claim regarding the tenancy land and made efforts to dispossess her and therefore, she approached the Tenancy Tribunal seeking protection by way of injunction against the respondents therein. The application filed by her came to be allowed and consequently permanent injunction has been granted in her favour. The respondents therein carried the matter in appeal by filing A.T.A.No.73 of 1997 on the file of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge’s Court), Guntur. The appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 23.04.1997 passed in ATC No.15 of 1986 on the file of the Special Officer-cum- Munsif Magistrate, Ponnur. Thadepalli Seetharamamma, Annapoornamma and the respondents herein filed O.S. No.3 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla against the the petitioner herein and one Gandikota Venkateswara Rao for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The learned Senior Civil Judge, while declaring the plaintiffs therein as owners, refused to grant the relief of recovery of possession since the same is required to be adjudicated by the Tenancy Tribunal and not a civil Court, by judgment dated 05.12.2001. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the judgment passed in O.S.No.3 of 1998, which reads as hereunder: “32. Issues 1 and 2:- No doubt the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of their title but by virtue of the relationship as landlord with D-2 the relief has to be sought before the tenancy tribunal but not in a civil Court.” In view of the said direction given by the Civil Court, the respondents herein filed ATC No.2 of 2002 under Sections 10 and 16 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner herein from A.T.C. schedule mentioned property. The petitioner herein filed counter resisting the application. On behalf of the respondents herein, one witness was examined as PW.1 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4. On behalf of the petitioner herein, she got herself examined as RW.1 and marked one document as Ex.R1. The learned Special Officer, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, recorded a finding that the petitioners before him are the landlords within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and that the petitioner herein committed default in payment of maktha and thereby proceeded to allow the application and directed the petitioner herein to vacate the ATC schedule mentioned property, by order dated 22.02.2008. Paras.18 and 19 of the order read as hereunder: “18. On careful observation of all these facts and basing on the above judgments, I am of the opinion that those decisions are aptly applicable to the present set of facts of this case. Further, I have not seen any ground to hold that there is no dual relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent. Because even the respondent contended that the deceased Maha Lakshmi has adopted a child and she had brother. There is no material to hold to believe the same. Further, on careful observation of Ex.P1 order passed in ATC 15/86, I am of the opinion that Sistla Annapurnamma and Tadepalli Sitharamamma are also come under the purview of Section 2(f) A.P. Tenancy Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent. It is however made clear that the right of inheritance of the petitioners to the petition schedule property in question has not been decided in the present proceedings in any observation and finding in this order cannot be constituted as final finding as to such right of ownership of petition schedule land. 19. In view of the above observations, I am of the opinion that admittedly the respondent committed default in payment of maktha and on the ground that the respondent deny the title of the landlord, the respondent has to be evicted from the petition schedule land. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.” The petitioner assailed the order of the Special Officer by filing an appeal before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal. The learned Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, on re-appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any valid ground to defer with the findings recorded by the Tenancy Tribunal and thereby dismissed the appeal, by judgment dated 18.06.2009. Hence, this revision by the petitioner/tenant. 3. Heard Sri P.Gangaih Niadu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents cannot be construed as landlords within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and therefore, the very proceedings initiated by them before the Tenancy Tribunal seeking eviction of the petitioner are not maintainable. A further submission has been made that in the earlier round of litigation, the respondents herein failed to evict the petitioner and suffered certain adverse findings and therefore, the petition filed by the respondents before the Tenancy Tribunal is liable to be dismissed. The learned senior counsel would also contend that the Tenancy Tribunal as well as Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate the material brought on record in right perspective and thereby erred in ordering eviction of the petitioner from the A.T.C. mentioned schedule property. 5. I do find some substance in the contentions advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first blush, but on close scrutiny of the material brought on record, I do not detain myself long to reject the same. 6. In the suit filed by the respondents herein, there is a specific finding that they are the landlords and therefore, they have to seek their redress before the Tenancy Tribunal for eviction of the petitioner herein. Even otherwise, Mahalakshmamma is the original landlord of the A.T.C. schedule mentioned property. She died issueless and her husband pre-deceased her. Since the A.T.C. schedule mentioned property has been given to her towards maintenance, she became the absolute owner and after her death the same devolves to the heirs of her husband under Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, reads as hereunder: 15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus. – (1) Property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16, -- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),--- (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-n-;law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.” A plain reading of the above referred provision indicates that any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband. Indisputably, Annapoornamma and Seetharamamma are the sisters of the husband of Mahalakshmamma. There is no other person claiming the properties of Mahalakshmamma. The civil Court gave a categorical finding that the respondents herein are the landlords. Once they have been declared as titleholders of the land, they are entitled to initiate the proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal against the petitioner, who claims to be a tenant, for eviction. There is no dispute with regard to non-payment of maktha by the petitioner/tenant. Under Section 13 of the Act, failure to pay the rent is a ground for termination of tenancy. The Tenancy Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal considered the material brought on record in right perspective and found that the petitioner/tenant is a defaulter in paying the maktha and thereby rendered himself liable for eviction. I do not see any flaw in the findings recorded by the Tenancy Tribunal as confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal warranting interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:20th October, 2009. cs