THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.4545/2009 Date of Order: 26-8-2011 Between: Siripurapu Venkata Rama Rao ..Petitioner and Vemuri Venkayamma Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.4545/2009 Oral order: The revision petitioner herein is none other than the brother of the respondent. He filed ATC No.1/2002 before the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada under sec.10(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 for declaration that he is the statutory tenant of the petition schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of the petition schedule property stating that the respondent is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.2-85 cents of wet land in R.S.No.625/1 of Yalamarru village having acquired the same under a registered gift deed executed by her father. Subsequently, in the year 1979-80 the said land was not cultivated by anybody. In the year 1980, the petitioner took the land on lease agreeing to pay 12 bags of paddy per acre weighing 75 kgs, which comes to 30 bags per year and he has been regularly paying Maktha till 2000-2001. The petitioner sent a demand draft for Rs.12,000/- through registered post on 8-2-2002 towards the value of 30 bags of paddy and the same was received by the respondent. The petitioner has a right to continue till 30 bags Maktha is paid properly. The respondent/landlady contested the petition by filing counter while denying leasing out of the land and receiving the demand draft stated that since the date of execution of gift deed her husband used to cultivate the land with the help of farm servants and she never inducted the petitioner as a tenant in the schedule property and the petitioner never cultivated the schedule land. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.R-1 to R-16 were marked. On evaluating the evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, the Special Tribunal dismissed ATC holding that the petitioner miserably failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent and is not entitled to any relief. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate court confirmed the same. Hence, the present revision is by the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the orders of the courts below. The only evidence available to substantiate the oral tenancy is the evidence of P.W.2 apart from the evidence of the petitioner himself as P.W.1. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that the petitioner is cultivating the land even from his forefathers’ regime and prior to the gift deed. But the petitioner’s case is that in the year 1980, the property was leased out to him. When P.W.1 was cross examined about the details of payment of Maktha of Rs.12,000/- by way of demand draft, he stated that he would examine the bank people to prove that he sent the demand draft to the respondent, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not examine any bank people and did not substantiate his plea about payment of Maktha through demand draft. On the other hand, the respondent examined the Bank Manager as R.W.4. R.W.4 deposed that the petitioner obtained a demand draft in the name of the respondent on 8-2-2002 and subsequently cancelled it on 18-2-2002, which falsifies the case of the petitioner about payment of maktha. Further, Ex.R-15-pattadar pass book and R-16-Adangal extract for falsies 1413 and 1414 would clearly show that the respondent is in possession and occupation of the petition schedule land and cultivating it personally, which also falsify the case of the petitioner. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.26-8-2011 kmr