HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.2674 OF 2010 DATE:09-07-2010 BETWEEN: Aadimoolam Veerraju …Petitioner AND Annamdevulu Satyanarayana & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.2674 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner claiming to be a statutory tenant filed E.A.Sr.No.9383 of 2010 in E.P.No.42 of 2008 in O.S.No.467 of 1995 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry to uphold the pre-existing tenancy rights of the petitioner and to order for symbolic possession of the decree schedule property subject to the tenancy rights of the petitioner while ordering the execution of the sale deed to the decree holder in the E.P. The lower Court by the impugned order dismissed the said E.A.Sr. holding that the petitioner has not filed any documents to substantiate his contention that he is a statutory tenant of the schedule property and that the legal proceedings are pending before any court about his tenancy rights. Further, it was observed that the Judgment debtors have also not stated anything during the pendency of the entire proceedings that the property is under the occupation of the tenant-petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the petition filed by the petitioner it is stated that the first respondent- decree holder is aware of the existing tenancy and the first respondent knowing fully well about the said tenancy purchased the schedule property. The property was purchased by the first respondent in contravention of preemptive rights under Section 15(1) of the A.P. Tenancy Act and that the alienation is voidable at the instance of the petitioner under Section 15(6) of the Act, and that the petitioner has already filed A.T.C.No.22 of 2007 under Sections 15 and 16 of the A.P. Tenancy Act for declaration of his tenancy rights and for injunction and other reliefs, which is pending before the tenancy Court. If that be the case, the petitioner ought to have filed the said documents before the executing Court along with the impugned E.A.Sr., but he has not filed any such documents. Further the civil Court cannot decide the tenancy rights of the parties in view of the bar contained under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act. The said aspect is exclusively determinable by the Special Officer under the said Act. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable with the impugned order passed by the lower Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. It is always open for the petitioner to obtain necessary orders from the Special Officer under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 09, 2010 Tsr.