HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2711 of 2009 ORDER: Heard both sides and perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10-02-2009, in A.T.A.No.10 of 2007 on the file of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (District Judge), West Godavari District, at Eluru. The said appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants was dismissed confirming the order of eviction dated 05-04-2007 passed in A.T.C.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the Special Officer (Tenancy)-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. 3. The 1st petitioner herein was the original tenant of the 1st respondent-landlord. The 1st respondent herein filed A.T.C.No.5 of 2003 under Section 16 (2) of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 against the 1st petitioner for eviction on three grounds viz., that the tenant committed default in payment of makta for the years 2000-2001, 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003, the tenant also committed acts of waste and the tenant has sub-let the lands. It is not disputed that the extent of land is Ac.5.44 cents and it was taken on oral lease by the 1st petitioner herein on a crop rent of 67 bags of paddy per year i.e. 47 bags of paddy for first crop and 20 bags paddy for the 2nd crop. The landlord alleged that the makta was enhanced to 120 bags i.e. 70 bags for 1st crop, 50 bags for 2nd crop, and the same was disputed by the tenant. The Special Officer recorded a finding that the landlord failed to prove that there was any enhancement of makta. The Special Officer also on appreciation of evidence on record, held that insofar as the rent for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 is concerned, there is no arrears of makta. In so far as the rent for 2002-2003 is concerned, it was held that the value of makta for 42 bags for the first crop at Rs.14,100/- was paid by the tenant vide memo Ex.B-2, which shows the payment of the same. Thus, the default remained only in respect of the makta for second crop of 2002-2003. The tenant has not produced any evidence to show that the said makta was paid for 2nd crop also in time i.e. before the end of March 2003. 4. The contention of the tenant was that the makta for both first crop and second crop was paid at the same time and the same was negatived by the Courts below. As per the memo Ex.B-2, it was only the makta for the first crop i.e. Rs.14,100/- towards value of 47 bags was paid. Therefore, absolutely there is no receipt evidencing the payment of makta of 20 bags for the second crop of 2002-2003. In the absence of any evidence showing payment of makta for the second crop of 2002-2003, the findings of the Courts below that there has been default in respect of the same does not call for any interference. In so far as other grounds i.e. alleged acts of waste and sub-lease, the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding in favour of the tenant. However, in view of the finding of the Courts below that the tenant has committed the default in payment of makta for the second crop of 2002-2003, the order of eviction passed against the tenant is sustainable. 5. It is stated that subsequent to the death of the original tenant, the 1st petitioner, his L.R.s. – petitioners 2 to 7 have been cultivating the lands. On the death of the 1st respondent, the original landlord, his L.Rs. are brought on record as R-2 to R-5. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have raised a crop and the same is standing on the land and sometime may be granted in the event of their eviction being ordered. 7. The petitioners are therefore directed to vacate the schedule land and handover the possession to the respondent after harvesting the existing standing crop on the schedule land, within a period of six months from today. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ 13-12-2011 G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J kvr