HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3213 OF 2003 Date: 27.12.2017 Between: Bathini Darmayya s/o. Narayya (died) per LRs 3 to5 Aged about 60 years, Cultivation, r/o. Chandrapalem, Samalkot Mandal, East Godavari district and others. …..Petitioners/Appellants/ petitioners and Narava Nageswara Rao s/o Sanyasi, (died) Per LRs 4 to 7 Aged about 42 years, Business, r/o. Suryaraopeta, Kakinada and others. …..Respondents/respondents/ respondents The Court made the following: PNR,J C.R.P.No. 3213 of 2003 2 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3213 OF 2003 ORDER: Petitioners herein filed A.T.C.No.91 of 1989 on the file of Special Officer-cum-Prl.District Munsif, Kakinada, under Section 16(1) and 15 of A.P.Tenancy Act, 1956 praying for declaration that petitioners are tenants of petition schedule property and to declare the agreement of sale, dated 14.08.1989 executed by the owners of the property in favour of 4th respondent as null and void and to determine the reasonable price and to direct the respondents to execute sale deed conveying the petition schedule land to the petitioners. 2. Briefly noted, according to the petitioners, they are cultivating tenants of the petition schedule land on a maktha of 40 bags payable by Ugadi festival of each year. It was oral lease granted in their favour as per the practice prevailing in the village. Based on the oral understanding, petition schedule lands are cultivated by the petitioners on payment of maktha. They contended that the yield was one crop in the year. They further contended that they paid land revenue. The immediate provocation for instituting the case before the Special Officer was alleged agreement of sale entered by owners with 4th respondent in order to frustrate the lease and to throw away the petitioners. The contention of petitioners that existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is denied by the respondents. They denied the possession of land by the petitioners and cultivation. According to them, they are cultivating the land and petitioners were only undertaking watering the fields and nothing else. PNR,J C.R.P.No. 3213 of 2003 3 3. On behalf of petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A8 and on behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. Ex.X1 was also marked. 4. On evaluation of evidence on record, the Special Officer held that no material is brought on record to show semblance of tenancy in favour of petitioners. On the contrary, documentary evidence placed on record would show that the property stands in the name of respondents and were also in possession. The revenue records placed before the Special Officer supports the stand of the respondents regarding ownership and possession. 5. The stand of petitioners that they are paying maktha was also not accepted by the Special Officer. The Special Officer observed that according to petitioners, agricultural lands yielded only one crop, whereas, as per practice in the villages in the State of Andhra Pradesh, maktha has to be paid by ‘Makara Sankranthi’ every year or at least by the end of January. The Special Officer, therefore, observed that having admitted that there was no second crop in the schedule land, the very contention that they were paying maktha by Kotha Amavasya would itself show that petitioners are not cultivating tenants of petition schedule land. On assessment of evidence on record, the Special Officer dismissed the case. 6. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners preferred A.T.A.No.10 of 1998 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. Same contentions were urged before the appellate Court also. On evaluation of evidence on record, appellate Court also found that PNR,J C.R.P.No. 3213 of 2003 4 there was no material to show that petitioners are tenants and that they are paying maktha. The first appellate Court observed that relationship of landlord and tenant is not established and that petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief under A.P.Tenancy Act. The appellate Court also noticed that revenue records would show that landlord is cultivating the land and, therefore, claim of oral lease cannot be believed. 7. It is thus seen that the Special Officer and appellate authority concurrently held that relationship of landlord and tenant and proof of payment of maktha is not established. On the contrary, according to the assessment made by the Courts below, the revenue records disclose that possession of subject property vested in the owners. 8. It is also appropriate to note at this stage that the respondents filed O.S.No.659 of 1989 to grant injunction against interference and possession. Said suit was dismissed. However, aggrieved thereby, plaintiffs therein preferred A.S.No.132 of 1997 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada and the same was allowed by judgment dated 07.12.1988. Against the judgment in A.S.No.132 of 1997, Second Appeal No.75 of 1999 was preferred to this Court and this Court dismissed the Second Appeal affirming the judgment and decree granted by the first appellate Court. 9. Learned counsel for petitioners sought to emphasize that RW.1, in his categorical deposition in O.S.No.659 of 1989, which was marked as Ex.A8, admitted existence of tenancy and in view of the same, the findings recorded by the Courts below are not valid. Learned counsel for petitioners also placed reliance on the PNR,J C.R.P.No. 3213 of 2003 5 deposition of RW.1 in A.T.C.No.91 of 1989. On going through the said deposition, it is clear that RW.1 has not admitted the possession by petitioners and existence of relationship of landlord and tenant by petitioners. RW.1 was extensively cross-examined, but he stood by his earlier statement. He has also explained the statement given by him in O.S.No.659 of 1989. In view of the said deposition, it is clear that even the stand of petitioners that RW.1 in his evidence in O.S.No.659 of 1989 accepted existence of tenancy granted to the petitioners has no merit. 10. When the Courts below concurrently held that relationship of landlord and tenant is not established, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion, more so when this Court do not find any perversity in the decision arrived at by the Tribunals below. 11. At this stage, it is opposite to note the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,1. Supreme Court held: “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or reweigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal 1 (2003) 3 SCC 524 PNR,J C.R.P.No. 3213 of 2003 6 purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” 12. I, therefore, do not see any error in the decisions arrived at by the Tribunals below and no perversity in the findings by both Tribunals below warranting interference. Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the order do not come in the way of settlement of any issue inter parties. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 27.12.2017 kkm PNR,J C.R.P.No. 3213 of 2003 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3213 OF 2003 Date: 27.12.2017 Kkm