THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD C R P NO. 2241 OF 1998 ORAL ORDER : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) The revision petitioner /appellant is the tenant who files this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved against the orders passed in A T A No.14 of 1996 dated 16.12.1997 on the file of the District Judge, Kurnool dismissing the appeal and confirming the orders passed by the Principal District Munsif cum Special Officer under Tenancy Act, Nandyal in A T C No. 19 of 1989 dated 30.11.1996. Briefly the facts giving rise to these proceedings are that the petitioner herein claiming to be the tenant, has filed an application before the primary authority viz., Special officer as constituted under the A P Tenancy Act under Section 10 and 19 (2) of the Act for declaration that he is a permanent tenant and entitled for all rights in perpetuation and has sought for permanent injunction and same was contested by the respondents herein, inter-alia on various counts. At the outset, this revision was taken up and heard along with other connected appeal in L P A No. 48 of 1998 in a claim for specific performance of an agreement and the decree of the trial Court as well as this Court by learned Single Judge was confirmed as per the judgment of even date. Be that as it may, in the claim made by the petitioner, the Special Officer after holding regular enquiry, where both sides produced evidence , did not accept the claim of the petitioner and especially held that the petitioner is not entitled to file the very same application and the same is barred under the principles of resjudicate, in view of the findings arrived at in the very civil proceedings which as stated was held against and therefore the question seeking for the relief of declaration is wholly unsustainable and rejected the same. On further appeal, the appellate Tribunal after hearing both sides did not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the primary authority and dismissed the same. Having regard to the findings of fact as arrived at by both the Tribunal consistently and supported by not only the material evidence but also by giving well reasoning, which this Court would not venture to disturb and come to a different conclusion, especially in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is needless to reiterate all such findings of fact, which are binding on this Court and this Court would not in any way interfere with any of such findings of fact and especially where there is no question of law much less legal infirmity or error of perversity arising. Hence, we do not find any reasons or grounds to interfere with the orders under revision and even in view of the findings as stood confirmed in L P A No. 48 of 1998 the revision fails and accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ G BHAVANI PRASAD,J DATE: 2 -09-2009 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD C R P NO. 2241 OF 1998 DATE: -09-2009