THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 2710 of 1992 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1992 in O.S.No. 47 of 1988 on the file of the District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. The suit was one filed for declaration that the plaintiff is cultivating tenant in respect of the plaint schedule property and for grant of injunction and also for ancillary relief. The plaintiff claims that an extent of Ac.13-19 cents covered by R.S.No.75 under patta No.41 of Lakshmipuram village belonged to the defendant was given on a lease on certain conditions and the plaintiff has been cultivating the lands since long time. The plaintiff has also raised some cashew nut crops. The plaintiff was paying the rent without any default. The defendant refused to receive the rent from the year 1987. Hence, the suit. The defendant filed written statement admitting that the plaintiff is the tenant but pleaded that the plaintiff has been cultivating the lands since 1975 and the plaintiff has agreed to vacate the lands in November, 1987 and accordingly delivered possession of the land to the defendant on the next day of Telugu new year day of 1988 but failed to pay the rent. Therefore, the defendant is in possession of the property. It was also pleaded that the lease is not valid in view of the provisions of the Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959 as amended in Regulation 1/1970 belonging to the Tribal areas, where the transfer of a lease in favour of non-Tribals is not valid. On the basis of the above pleadings, the necessary issues have been framed by the learned District Judge. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. After considering the evidence on record, the learned District Judge found that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief as prayed for, but however he did not accept the plea of surrender made by the defendant and consequently dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for? 2. Whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge is legal and sustainable? POINTS: Evidently, there is no dispute about the fact that the suit schedule property belongs to the defendant and the plaintiff claims to be a tenant of the defendant since 1975. The defendant also does not seriously dispute about the factum of tenancy. But, however, the defendant pleaded surrendering of the property in 1988 and the lower Court has not accepted the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that during the pendency of the present suit, an application was filed before the Revenue Authorities for eviction of the plaintiff from the schedule properties and that application was allowed, against which an appeal was preferred to the Revenue Divisional Officer, and that was also dismissed and consequently a writ petition was filed challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Agency Rules and the writ petition is said to have been allowed remanding the matter for enquiry before the Agent to Government i.e. Collector, which is said to be still pending. Therefore, all questions, with regard to the validity of the lease or with regard to the quantum of the rent payable, are to be decided by the competent authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act. Any dispute between the landlord and the tenant has to be decided by the Tenancy Tribunal and in this case, evidently, powers are conferred under the Agency Rules to the Special Deputy Collector. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the lower Court has held that there is no jurisdiction to the Civil Court to consider the claim of the plaintiff for declaration that he was a tenant of the property. But the declaration is also redundant in view of the admitted fact that the surrender is not admitted and the respondent himself has filed an application for eviction on the ground of tenancy. Any of the findings or observations relating to the contract of lease between the plaintiff and the defendant in this suit will not be binding during the enquiry before the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court and accordingly, the points are answered. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 30-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No. 2710 of 1992 DATE: 30-08-2011 MR