THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5780 of 2010 Dated: 01.04.2011 Between: Sri Tammineedi Buyllaiabbai, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And Smt. Tammineedi, West Godavari District. … Respondent THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5780 of 2010 O R D E R : The respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the landlord’) filed A.T.C.No.4 of 2006 in the Court of the Special Officer, Tenancy Tribunal-cum-I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru seeking eviction of the revision petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’) from the petition schedule property and to deliver vacant possession on the ground of willful default of makta. The said petition was allowed with costs by order dated 14.07.2009. The tenant/revision petitioner preferred A.T.A.No.14 of 2009 in the Court of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (District Judge), West Godavari, Eluru, which was dismissed by judgment dated 18.08.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the tenant. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. As noticed above, the eviction petition was filed on the ground of willful default of makta. The tenant/revision petitioner denied the allegation and claimed that the land in question was sold away to one Manne Venkatalakshmi (R.W.2) with whom he entered into afresh lease agreement and that he had been regularly paying the makta to R.W.2. Thus, it was contended that the petitioner in A.T.C.No.4 of 2006 had no title to the schedule property and that he was not a tenant under the said petitioner. The petitioner/landlord examined two witnesses and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 documents to substantiate her claim. On behalf of the tenant, four witnesses were examined, but no documents could be marked. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Special Officer recorded a finding that the petitioner had established her ownership in respect of the schedule property and that R.W.2 had no valid title over the said property. It was also found that the tenant committed willful default in payment of makta since 2003. Accordingly, the petition was allowed directing the tenant to vacate the schedule property and deliver vacant possession to the petitioner. The lower appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the findings recorded by the Special Officer and dismissed the appeal. Having regard to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Court below, the revision petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as a cultivating tenant under the petitioner in A.T.C.No.4 of 2006 (respondent herein) and that the tenant failed to pay the makta since 2004, the eviction ordered by the Court below cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Nothing could be placed before this Court to show that the said findings of fact recorded by the Courts below were contrary to the evidence available on record. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 01 .04.2011 KLP