HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5153 of 2008 Date: October 04, 2010 Between: Sukhavasi Borraiah … Petitioner/ Appellant/ Petitioner And 1. Pamidi Rajasekhara Rao & another … Respondents/ Respondents/ Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5153 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.09.2009 passed in A.T.A. No.13 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge, Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur whereunder and whereby the order in A.T.C. No.9 of 1996 on the file of Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur was confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision may be stated as follows: The petition is filed under Section 16 of A.P. (A.A.) Tenancy Act against the respondents to declare him as cultivating tenant in respect of lands to an extent of Ac.2-75 cents situated in D.No.658 of Returu village alleging that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the properties since 1992-1993 by paying annual rent, that the second respondent is elder brother and he was acting as General Power of Attorney of first respondent, that while acting as General Power of Attorney, the second respondent inducted the petitioner into possession of the petition schedule property as tenant on an annual rent of Rs.10,000/- for fasli 1992-’93, that the first respondent thereafter collected the rent for the year 1994-’95 and issued a receipt and also collected rent for the year 1996-’97 and issued a receipt for Rs.20,000/-, that the respondents are threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the petition schedule land and hence, the petition. 3. The first respondent filed counter stating that it is false to say the second respondent being General Power of Attorney holder leased the petition schedule land to the petitioner in the year 1992-’93 and that since then he is in possession of the property. He is not cultivating tenant to the petition schedule land. It is a fact that the second respondent acted as General Power of Attorney of the first respondent for some time and the agency was terminated on 31.8.1995 itself and the petition schedule land was given on lease by the second respondent to one Katuri Kondalu and therefore he prays to dismiss the petition. 4. The second respondent remained ex parte. 5. To substantiate the case of the petitioner that he is cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.2-75 cents of land, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of respondents R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 was marked. 6. The trial court upon considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that Exs.A-1 to A-3 are fabricated for the purpose of this case, that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant and accordingly dismissed the petition. On appeal the said finding was confirmed. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court has not considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-3, but solely relied upon the final report (Ex.B-1) filed by the S.I. of Police, Kakumanu P.S. which is not admissible under law, that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 would clearly go to show that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property long prior to the filing of the A.T.C., that the receipts Exs.A-1 to A-3 would go to show that in the first instance the second respondent received maktha and on subsequent years the first respondent received the maktha, that therefore, these documents would clearly go to show that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant in respect of the petition schedule land and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised when there is illegal or incorrect findings or the findings are not based upon any admissible evidence. The finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon any evidence. In view of the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute, the burden is on the petitioner to establish that he is cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule land. The entire case of the petitioner rests upon the documents Exs.A1 to A-3, which are said to have been issued by the first respondent. If Exs.A-1 to A-3 are accepted to be true and correct documents, there is no difficulty in accepting the case of the petitioner that he is a cultivating tenant. But, the evidence on record would clearly go to show that there is a serious dispute with regard to execution of Exs.A-1 to A-3. No doubt, the attestors of those documents have been examined to prove those documents. At the same time, the trial court recorded findings that all these documents would appear to have been signed by the person who issued the receipts at one and the same time and therefore they were fabricated. That finding appears to be correct in view of the fact that on perusal of Exs.A-1 to A-3, there are certain differences in the signatures on those documents. The trial court observed that the signature of P.W.3 was made with the same pen in all Exs.A-1 to A-3 and the recitals were also made with the same pen. But, the dates on the receipts underneath the signature of the scribe are not with the same pen, but with different ink. The paper of Ex.A-1 is old and the paper of Exs.A-2 and A-3 is one and the same and there was no explanation by P.W.3 with regard to the signatures in Exs.A-1 to A-3 with one and the same pen and the dates on those documents are with different ink. So, after observing those documents, the trial court came to the conclusion that Exs.A-1 to A-3 were fabricated for the purpose of this case. 9. Shorn of these documents, there is no other evidence to show that the petitioner was in possession of the property as a cultivating tenant except his oral testimony. Therefore, the finding of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court cannot be shown to be perverse or contrary to law. It is based upon a proper appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the petitioner has been in possession of the property and has paid maktha and raised Paddy crop for the present, he may be given three months time to vacate the petition schedule land. Considering the fact that the request of the petitioner’s counsel has not been opposed by the respondent in view of the fact that the respondent has not engaged any advocate, till December 31, 2010 the petitioner can harvest Paddy in the petition schedule land and thereafter he shall vacate the same. 11. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: October 04, 2010. BSB