THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5766 of 2005 DATE:16.09.2009 Between: Simma Suryanarayana … Petitioner And Dusi Udayakumar and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5766 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner is a tenant of the respondents in respect of agricultural land. The rent/maktha was 13 putties per year. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed A.T.C.No.13 of 1995 before the Special Officer-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, under Section 13 of the A.P.(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). They pleaded that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent for the year 1993-1994, and thereby, he is liable to be evicted. The petitioner opposed the A.T.C., by denying the allegation of default. He pleaded that he offered to pay the amount to the 1st respondent, and on his advice, he approached the 2nd respondent, and when both of them refused, he sent the amount, by money order. Reference is also made to the notices, that have been exchanged between the parties. Through its order, dated 09.02.1999, the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, allowed the A.T.C. and ordered eviction of the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed A.T.A.No.2 of 1999 in the Appellate Authority-cum-District Judge, Srikakulam. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, through its judgment, dated 14.09.2005. Hence this revision. Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute as to the existence of tenancy between the petitioner and the respondents. The lease was oral in nature, when it commenced during the life time of the father of the 1st respondent and husband of the 2nd respondent. The respondents instituted the A.T.C. for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground of default in payment of the rent. The 1st respondent deposed as P.W.1 and he filed Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the petitioner, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.9 were filed. The oral and documentary evidence clearly suggested that the rent was payable in January of each year. The petitioner himself admitted as R.W.1 that there existed a practice to pay the rent, before or immediately after Sankranthi festival, and at any rate, in the month of January of each year. From a reading of the counter filed by the petitioner and his oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that for the year 1993-1994, he offered the rent only in the month of April, 1994 to the 1st respondent. It was stated that the 1st respondent advised the petitioner to go to the 2nd respondent and when the latter refused, the amount was sent through money order. Had the offer been made in January and the actual payment came to be made in April, after exhausting all steps, things would have been different altogether. The record clearly discloses that the offer to pay the rent itself was made in the month of April, 1994. Hence, there existed a clear case of default, on the part of the petitioner. The trial court and the lower appellate court have examined the matter from the correct perspective. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is permitted to harvest the existing crop. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 16th September, 2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5766 of 2005 16th September, 2009 CBS