IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11880 of 2009 Between: Tadikonda Anaruryamma W/o.Viswanadham R/o.Prodduvaka Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND Alla Veerullu S/o.Bhogayya Kocherla Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly a Writ of Ceritiorary setting aside the Order in A.T.C. No. 1 of 2004, dated : 10-03-2005 passed by the Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur, Krishna District by which the ATC filed by the Petitioner was dismissed and the subsequent appellate order in C.M.A. No. 30 of 2006, dated : 19-01-2009 passed by the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam by which the appeal filed by this Petitioner was dismissed and consequently allow the ATC No. 1 of 2004 filed by the Petitioner and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.P.ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.11880 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated.10-03-2006 of the Special Officer under A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur in ATC No.1 of 2004 as confirmed by the order of the District Judge, Krishna dated.19-01- 2009 in CMA No.30 of 2006. The petitioner herein filed the tenancy case before the Primary Tribunal under Sec.13(A) & (E) of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act for eviction of the respondent herein from agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0.53 1/3 cents in R.S.No.76/3 of Kocherla Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District on the ground of default in payment of arrears of Maktha, claiming that the respondent was a tenant of the said land. As pleaded in the tenancy case by the petitioner herein, she inherited the property from her husband Viswanadham during whose lifetime the respondent herein entered the land as a cultivating tenant and continued as such after his demise. The tenant was alleged to have defaulted in payment of rentals for three years on the agreed rent of 30 bags of paddy for both the crops. The respondent denied the relationship of landlord with the petitioner herein and claimed that he was the owner of the property and was in possession. He purchased the schedule property from the petitioner’s husband Viswanadham and his three sons for Rs.3,430/- on 2-12-1978 and had paid Rs.700/- towards advance. Possession was delivered on 10-01- 1979. Balance payment due to Viswanadham was also claimed to have been paid. According to the respondent Visswanadham died about 25 years ago and his son Nageswara Rao about 20 years ago. The other sons left the village. The petitioner is also living with one Narasimhulu as his common law wife, a position stated to have been admitted by the petitioner in her succession O.P.82 of 1995 before the District Court, Machilipatnam. The respondent denied the petitioner’s locus standi to file the tenancy case seeking his eviction. The trial court on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the possession of the respondent was relatable to the agreement of sale with possession executed by the petitioner’s husband Viswanadham and that the petitioner failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. In appeal by the petitioner the appellate authority-the learned District Judge concurred with the findings of the Primary Tribunal that the petitioner failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and dismissed the appeal. No error in the application of law or perversity in appreciation of evidence is discernable warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 19th JUNE 2009 *TSNR