IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTHDAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3486 OF 2009 Between: Bodapati Subba Rao and another …Petitioners A n d Pulletikurthi Satyanarayanamma …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3486 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2009 in A.T.A.No.4 of 2007, on the file of the II-Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Tribunal, East Godavari at Amalapuram, whereunder the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 19.02.2007 in A.T.C.No.1 of 1999, on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Section 16(1) and 13(A) and 13(E) of the Andhra Tenancy Act was allowed and the tenancy of the petitioners herein in respect of the schedule land was terminated, directing them to deliver possession to the respondent herein within six months. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the tenancy application A.T.C.No.1 of 1999 contending, in brief, as follows:- Originally, the petition schedule land of Ac.1-56 cents out of Ac.3-12 cents in R.S.No.202/2 and an extent of Ac.0-40 cents in R.S.No.94/2 of Kattunga village belonging to the respondent herein was leased out by her maternal grandfather Chandramouli Gangadaram in favour of one Bodapati Veeranna, father of petitioners, under a lease deed dated 15.05.1955 for one year and they were extended every year till 1959 and after the death of the original landlord Gangadaram also, Veeranna continued as a tenant of respondent’s grandmother Ch.Satyanarayanamma and respondent’s mother Subadramma. Subsequently, Veeranna continued as a tenant of the respondent since 1975 enhancing the rent from time to time. As per the terms of the lease, the petitioners have to pay 49 kata baga of paddy towards rent by 15th January every year under a receipt besides bundles of hay. Veranna committed default in payment of rents for the years 1995- 96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The respondent got issued a telegraphic notice dated 05.11.1998. The petitioner received the same, but kept quiet. After the death of Veeranna, his sons, the petitioners herein, were impleaded as legal heirs as they continued to be in possession and enjoyment as tenants. The respondent sought eviction of the petitioners on the ground of willful default in payment of rents and also denial of title of the respondent. According to the respondent, the temple of Sri Sakileswara Swamy is a private temple of the respondent and the said temple has no title or interest or possession over the schedule property. Veeranna, father of the petitioners, who was the 1st respondent in A.T.C filed a counter opposing the petition contending that the schedule lands absolutely belongs to Sri Sakileswara Swamy temple and they were leased out in public auction on 29.05.1978 for a period of six years on annual rent of 47 kata bags of paddy to one Bodapati Potharaju. The said lease was confirmed by the Commissioner of Endowments by his proceedings dated 20.07.1978. Veeranna’s son Satyanarayana, who is plaintiff in O.S.No.111 of 1990, paid rent to the temple for the year 1988-89. Bodapati Potharaju also paid rent to the temple under a receipt dated 03.03.1989. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent herein and the petitioners. After the petitioners herein were impleaded, being the LRs of the deceased 1st respondent, no additional counter was filed by them. 4. During enquiry, the respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P-1 to 16 were marked on her behalf. The petitioners herein were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and one P.V.V.S.Kameswara Rao was examined as R.W.3 and Exs.R-1 to R-20 were marked on their side. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Officer, by order dated 19.02.2007 held that the Court has jurisdiction to determine the existence or otherwise of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Special Officer also held that the respondent herein established that she is the landlord and the petitioners herein are the tenants of the said land and the tenancy has been subsisting. It was also held that the petitioners herein committed default in payment of rents and they also willfully denied the title of the respondent herein and they failed to establish the title in favour of Sri Sakileswara Swamy temple and, therefore, the petitioners herein are liable to be evicted from the schedule land. The learned Special Officer also held that the petitioners herein failed to establish that they transferred possession of the schedule land to the temple and the temple in turn delivered possession to Vadali Visweswara Rao. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, terminating the tenancy of the petitioners herein and directing their eviction from the schedule land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an appeal in A.T.A.No.4 of 2007. By the impugned judgment dated 17.04.2009, the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Special Officer. Hence, the present revision by the petitioners. 6. The respondent herein filed the application under the Andhra Tenancy Act seeking eviction of Veeranna, father of the petitioners, who was the original tenant. After the death of Veeranna, the petitioners were impleaded, being the LRs who continued the tenancy. The respondent sought eviction on the ground of default in payment of rents for the period from 1995 to 1998. Admittedly, the rent for the said period was not paid. According to R.W.1, the 1st petitioner herein, the rents were paid by them to the temple of Sri Sakileswara Swamy at the request of the village elders, but not to the respondent herein. The fact that the rents were not paid by the petitioners to the respondent for the relevant period is, therefore, not in dispute and, on the other hand, is admitted. 7. The petitioners denied the title of the respondent and further contended that the schedule land belonged to the temple of Sri Sakileswara Swamy. According to the petitioners, Gangadaram, maternal grandfather of the respondent, was only rendering archakatvam service and was not the absolute owner of the schedule lands and the lands, in fact, belonged to the temple. They further contended that they were not the tenants either under Gangadaram or subsequently under the respondent herein, but they were tenants of the temple and, thus, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the petitioners. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the schedule land absolutely belonged to her grandfather Gangadaram, who inducted the petitioners’ father Veeranna as a tenant and subsequently continued to be a tenant of the respondent’s grandmother and mother and after their death Veeranna continued to be the tenant of the respondent. In support of her contention, she filed Exs.P-6 to P-14, the lease deeds executed in favour of Gangadaram. In the evidence, R.W.1 admitted in the cross-examination that he cultivated the schedule land along with other lands of the respondent herein; that his father was the original tenant and after his death, himself and his brother were inducted into tenancy. He further admitted that Gangadaram, maternal grandfather of the respondent herein, delivered the schedule land to the original tenant Veeranna and after the death of Gangadaram, Veeranna continued as a tenant under Satyanarayanamma, wife of Gangadaram and later as a tenant of Subadramma, daughter of Gangadaram and was paying rents to them. 8. R.W.3, the Executive Officer of the temple, also admitted that Gangadaram was in possession of the schedule land in 1951 and there is no document to show that the Endowments Department took delivery of possession of land from Gangadaram. The petitioners claim to have been inducted into possession as tenants by the temple by virtue of a public auction held on 29.05.1978. The Courts below, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, held that the petitioners herein failed to establish the said plea and, on the other hand, the categorical admissions of R.W.1 in the evidence would go to show that the petitioners’ father Veeranna was a tenant of Gangadaram and he continued the tenancy with Gangadaram’s wife Satyanarayanamma and later with Gangadaram’s daughter Subadramma, who is the mother of the respondent herein. The Courts below have also held that there is nothing on record to show that the temple has taken possession of the land from Gangadaram. R.W.1 claimed to have delivered possession of the land to the temple authorities during the pendency of the tenancy proceedings. Admittedly, the same is not evidenced by any document and the alleged delivery of possession in favour of the temple was not with permission or order of the Court. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly held that by the date of filing of the A.T.C, the petitioners father Veeranna was cultivating the schedule lands as tenant, having taken the land on lease from Gangadaram, the original landlord, and having continued the tenancy with the successors-in-interest of the original landlord. The concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below on a question of fact as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent herein and the petitioners, does not call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court, as the said finding is recorded on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record and particularly the admissions of R.W.1 himself in the evidence. The petitioners, having admittedly not paid the rents to the respondent for the period from 1995 to 1998 have, therefore committed default and thereby rendered themselves liable for eviction. 9. That apart, admittedly the petitioners herein have ceased to be in possession of the schedule lands during the pendency of the tenancy proceedings. According to the petitioners, they have delivered possession of the land to the temple authorities, which is disputed by respondent. In the grounds of appeal filed before the appellate authority, the petitioners herein have stated that they are not in possession of the schedule land and one Vadali Visweswara Rao was inducted as tenant by the Endowments Department. Neither the temple nor Vadali Visweswara Rao, the alleged tenant inducted by the temple, is a party to the present proceedings. As rightly observed by the learned Additional District Judge, the alleged rights of the temple or the alleged tenants of the temple, who were not parties to the present proceedings, do not arise for adjudication by the Special Officer. When once Gangadaram was shown to be the landlord within the meaning of said expression, as defined in Section 2(f) of the A.P (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act and Veeranna, father of petitioners, is held to be tenant of the said Gangadaram and later his successors, the petitioners who have stepped into the shoes of their father as tenants, are liable for eviction, as admittedly there was default in payment of rents to the respondent herein, who is the successor-in-interest of the original landlord. 10. It is not disputed that the respondent herein filed E.P.No.46 of 2007 and obtained delivery of possession through Court on 23.10.2007 and the said delivery of possession was recorded on 07.11.2007. The respondent herein filed copy of the delivery warrant, along with counter affidavit, issued under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC in E.P.No.46 of 2007 and the order dated 07.11.2007 was passed by the execution Court to the effect that delivery was effected and it was recorded and E.P was closed. The said orders have become final as they were not challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners have, thus, no subsisting interest in the schedule lands in the present proceedings in respect of which the eviction petition is filed, as they are admittedly not in possession of the schedule land and delivery of possession in favour of the respondent was also effected and recorded by the Court. 11. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned orders of the Court below terminating the tenancy and directing eviction of the petitioners herein from the schedule land do not call for any interference. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th October, 2011 Lrkm