HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.1761 of 2007 Dated 15-3-2011 Between: Veeranki Satyanarayana Prasad. …Petitioner. And: Veeranki Veera Krishna and another. …Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.1761 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is at the instance of the tenant who suffered order of eviction under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act. The respondents claiming as landlords filed proceedings for eviction of the tenant in A.T.C. No.4 of 1999 before the Special Officer, Tenancy Tribunal-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. The claim made by the respondents was that the petitioner/tenant has committed default in payment of lease rents and has not been paying the rents as per the terms of the registered lease deed. It was also claimed that the petitioner/tenant has committed such acts of waste as to affect the fertility of the land. Respondents also sought eviction on the ground of personal necessity. Petitioner/tenant denied the said allegations including the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents. Petitioner’s case was that the grand father of the parties was the original owner of the property who had given the aforesaid land on the lease to the petitioner for five years under Ex.A.2 dated 22-12-1984. The said original lessor died one year thereafter and the respondents herein are making a claim on the basis of a gift deed said to have been executed in their favour by the original lessor of the petitioner. The said gift deed is marked as Ex.A.1 dated 29-4-1981. The respondents however disputed the said lease deed on the ground that the said Kotaiah had no right to execute the lease deed, as he had only life interest. He also made a claim that Kotaiah had disputed gift Ex.A.1 and filed O.S.No.73 of 1981 for cancellation but said suit was dismissed. Petitioner contended that after death of Kotaiah, respondents claimed that petitioner is a trespasser and filed O.S.No.65 of 1995 which was dismissed on jurisdictional issue. The alleged ground of default was denied by contending that the petitioner is regularly depositing the rents as per the directions in C.M.A.No.139 of 1992 and therefore, denied that there is any default. The ground of personal requirement was also denied by alleging that the respondents have various other lands. Respondents/Landlords examined themselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4. Petitioner/tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.7. Upon consideration of evidence, the trial Court came to a conclusion that there is a clear willful default committed by the petitioner in view of the fact that he has not accepted the respondents herein as his landlords and is disputing the relationship as well including the gift deed Ex.A.1 in favour of the respondents. It was also found that there is no evidence of any other lands held by the respondents and they being from a agricultural family, the plea of personal requirement by the respondents was found substantiated. To the extent of acts of waste as alleged however, the Tribunal found in favour of the petitioners. On an appeal, the lower appellate Court has considered the entire material afresh and came to a conclusion that so far as the default is concerned, the amounts are being deposited by the petitioners to the credit of O.S.No.128 of 1985 and C.M.A.No.139 of 1992 as is evidenced by Exs.A.3 and A.4 and except some delays in depositing, there is no default as claimed. The ground of default which was upheld by the primary Tribunal was therefore reversed. To the extent of personal requirement, however, the appellate Tribunal agreed with the primary Tribunal as even otherwise there is no evidence on the part of the petitioner to substantiate that the respondents have other lands. The ground of act of waste was negatived and ultimately on the ground of personal requirement of eviction was ordered. Hence this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that neither there is default nor there is any denial of tenancy as understood by the Courts below. He submits that the petitioner merely contended that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant with late Kotaiah, original lessor. There was no instance of payment of rent or relationship as landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. He also submits that even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the petitioners father owns more than Ac.2.00 of land which is not taken into consideration by the tribunal below while upholding the personal requirement. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. So far as the default ground is concerned, the appellate Court has rightly found that the delayed deposits of rent as per Exs.A.3 and A.4 would show that there is no default. However, the conduct of the petitioner is required to be looked into as is specifically evident from record that he denied relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents. The record also disclosed that the petitioner himself was declared as tenant of the schedule property as against his original lessor Kotaiaih vide orders in A.T.C.No.2 of 1985 as confirmed in C.M.A.No.139 of 1992. Since right, title and interest of Kotaiah was transferred by him under Ex.A.1 gift deed in favour of the respondents and the said gift deed was challenged and upheld before a civil Court in O.S.No.73 of 1981. On account of finality attached to the said decree in O.S.No.73 of 1981, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the respondents are not landlords. Similarly, the Tribunal below has specifically considered and found that the respondents belongs to the agricultural family and except the said schedule land, there is no other property. With regard to Ac.2.00 of land held by the father of the respondents, it was found that no partition had taken place and P.Ws.1 and 2 are living separately. The Tribunal also noticed that the petitioners have only half acre each which is in their possession as such, the ground of personal requirement was made out by the respondents. However, the primary Tribunal after discussing the aforesaid evidence did not give a finding on that aspect. The lower appellate Court has considered the said aspect and has found that the petitioner has failed to substantiate that the respondents have got Ac.3.00 of agricultural land. These findings of fact cannot be disturbed in this revisional jurisdiction. More so, when there is no evidence forthcoming on behalf of the petitioner, I do not find any error warranting correction by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. The Revision Petition accordingly is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The petitioner is granted time for vacating the schedule land till the end of May, 2011 on condition that the petitioner shall file an undertaking before the primary Tribunal within two weeks from today that he shall vacate the schedule land on or before 31st May, 2011 and till then shall not part with or create any third party interest. In the absence of filing of such undertaking, the primary Tribunal shall be free to execute the decree without any impediment as to time granted as above. _________________________________ Justice VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 15-3-2011 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.1761 of 2007 Dated 15-3-2011