THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.400 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner was a lessee of late Ramamma, grandmother of the 1st respondent (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the respondent’), in respect of 0.98 cents of land in D.No.218/3 of Patehalatadiparru Village, Ponnuru Mandal, Guntur District. The lease commenced in the year 1972. The respondent filed A.T.C.No.2 of 1994 before the Special Officer-cum-District Munsif, Ponnuru, for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground that he committed default in payment of rents. The petitioner opposed the same, by filing a counter and pleading that the rent was paid. Through its order, dated 26.03.1997, the trial Court ordered eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the petitioner filed A.T.A.No.34 of 1997, before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur. The appeal was dismissed, through order, dated 04.01.2001. Hence, this C.R.P., under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, it was clearly established that the rent was paid, even before the A.T.C. was filed, and still the Courts below have taken the view that there was default. He submits that though one-year rent was paid belatedly, once it was preempted by the respondent, the defect, if any, stood rectified. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and went even to the extent of denying the title, leading to institution of several proceedings. He contends that the father of the respondent died, on 12.06.1992, and there is nothing on record to show that the rent was paid either prior, or subsequent, to his death. He submits that the payment of Rs.2,687/- was in the year 1993, towards dues for the previous years, and the amount of Rs.3,153/-, indicated through Ex.B.3, was a belated payment, leading to default. The tenancy of the petitioner over the land commenced in the year 1972, with the grandmother of the respondent. It was for a rent of 13 bags payable by the end of December every year. A lease deed was executed on 14.06.1972, and the same is marked as Ex.A.2. Punnaiah, the father of the respondent, succeeded to the land, after the death of Ramamma. Punnaiah filed A.T.C.No.192 of 1981, for eviction of the petitioner herein. He disputed the right of Punnaiah to file the A.T.C. The trial Court ordered eviction. However, the order of eviction was reversed in A.T.A.No.169 of 1984, filed by the petitioner herein. Punnaiah died, on 12.06.1992. The respondent filed the present A.T.C., for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner committed default. He pleaded that for the past several years, before the A.T.C. came to be filed, the petitioner is enjoying the property, without payment of rent or maktha. Before filing the A.T.C., he got issued a notice, which was marked as Ex.A.16. The reply thereto was marked as Ex.A.17. By deposing as PW.1, the respondent stated the various events that have taken place in the manner in which the default came to be committed. He filed Exs.A.1 to A.20. The petitioner deposed as RW.1 and filed Exs.B.1 to B.6. The trial Court recorded a specific finding to the effect that the stand of the petitioner was not consistent and it varied from stage to stage. It was also mentioned that he did not file any documentary evidence to show that he paid maktha. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the default was not committed, in respect of any particular item, and the Courts below were not justified in holding that there was default. It has already been mentioned that the respondent took a specific plea that the petitioner did not pay the rent for several years, if not decades. When such was the plea, the petitioner was under obligation to establish the payment of rent, at least, up to the date of filing of A.T.C. No such evidence was adduced. As PW.1, the respondent categorically stated that from 1975 to 1993, the petitioner did not pay the rents. No evidence, to the contrary, was adduced by the petitioner. The remittances said to have been made in the year 1993, for Rs.2,687/- and Rs.3,153/-, were not referable to any period. When there existed default, for decades together, payment of meager amount, cannot be treated as compliance. Further, there existed a stipulation to the effect that the rent shall be paid by the end of December every year. The petitioner miserably failed to establish that the rent of even for the period, after the death of Punnaiah, was paid within the stipulated time. The Courts below have undertaken extensive discussion on this aspect and have recorded specific findings to the effect that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was evicted from the land, much before the C.R.P. was filed. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:19.08.2009. GJ