THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3842 of 2011 Dated:30.11.2011 Between: Maddireddi Veerraju, S/o.Venkatarao @ Abbayi. …Petitioner and Jatavallabhula Subhadra, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3842 of 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, in A.T.A.No.2 of 2009, dated 27.07.2011. By the said judgment, the learned Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 04.02.2009 in A.T.C.No.1 of 2005 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein directing the eviction of the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 filed A.T.C.No.1 of 2005 for eviction of the petitioner and the third respondent from petition schedule land, being agricultural land in R.S.Nos.116/5 (Ac.1.58½ cents), 116/3 (Ac.0.40 cents), 116/4 (Acs.2.89 cents) and 120/1 (Ac.0.38 ½ cents) totally admeasuring Acs.5.27 cents situated at Madiki Village of Alamuru Mandal in East Godavari District. They alleged that the suit schedule property was leased out to the petitioner herein for annual rental of Rs.30,000/- payable by Telugu new years day of every year; though the petitioner used to pay the rent from time to time, he committed default in payment of the rentals for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and further he sublet the land to the third respondent herein in violation of the conditions of lease. The petitioner opposed the application denying the allegations made by the landlords. During the enquiry, three witnesses were examined by the landlords and two witnesses were produced for the tenant. Exs.P1 to P4 and R1 to R20 were also marked. On considering the evidence, the learned Special Officer – cum – Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru, came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default for the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, and accordingly ordered eviction directing the tenant to deliver the vacant possession within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. The tenant carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Authority in A.T.A.No.2 of 2009. By impugned judgment, the same was dismissed. The petitioner would contend that the evidence on record was not considered by the original Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal and the finding recorded that the tenant committed default is unsustainable. This Court has perused the order passed by the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority. The question whether the tenant committed default in payment of agreed rent as per the lease terms is a question of fact. After giving due consideration to the evidence on record, both the authorities held against the petitioner. That being so, in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the finding is grossly perverse, interference is not called for. The Counsel for the petitioner prays for some time for the petitioner to vacate the land. This Court is afraid such a request cannot be accepted. The original authority granted time of two months for delivery of possession. The said order was passed on 04.02.2009. The Appellate Authority’s order was passed on 27.07.2011. This only shows that even after he was ordered to be evicted, the petitioner was in possession of the land for over two years. Hence, if now time is extended, it would cause prejudice to the landlords. The request is therefore, rejected. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.11.2011 vs