IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3764 and 3840 of 2006 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3764 of 2006 Between: Uggirala Brahmananda Rao ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Koppisetti Annapurna and another .....RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3840 of 2006 Between: Uggirala Brahmananda Rao ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Koppisetti Annapurna .....RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3764 and 3840 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: Since these two revision petitions arise between the same parties, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioner in these two revisions claiming to be a cultivating tenant seeks to assail the correctness of the orders passed in two appeals; allowing one appeal filed at the instance of the respondent/landlady by setting aside the order dismissing the application filed by her seeking eviction of the petitioner and another on the ground of default; and dismissing another appeal filed at the instance of the petitioner confirming the order dismissing the application filed by himself for declaration that he is a cultivating tenant. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the material available on record. From the order impugned in CRP No.3764 of 2006 i.e. the judgment dated 11.07.2006 passed in A.T.A.No.10/2003 by the Appellate Authority under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, it is seen that, admittedly, the petitioner in these two revisions was a party to the earlier proceedings which were initiated at the instance of the respondent/ landlady in O.S.No.77/1998 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, against him and the 2nd respondent in CRP No.3764 of 2006 seeking termination of lease, possession of the suit schedule land, and for Rs.15,258/- towards arrears of rent. By the judgment dated 16.03.2001 passed in O.S.No.77/1998, the Civil Court, while negativing the prayers relating to termination of tenancy and possession of the suit schedule land after evicting therefrom the respondents therein on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant such reliefs, passed decree for arrears of rent claimed by the respondent/landlady against the 2nd respondent in CRP No.3764 of 2006 alone on the ground that he was the tenant of the schedule land and that there was no contractual obligation for the petitioner directly towards the respondent/ landlady for payment of rent and those findings have become final and conclusive as no any further proceedings have been taken up. It is these proceedings stating that the petitioner is a sub-tenant as having been inducted by the tenant and passed order dismissing his claim that he is a cultivating tenant. Having regard to such a finding of fact by the lower appellate Court that earlier there was a finding which is clearly in the nature of civil proceedings between the same parties, which has become final and constitutes a res judicata, it is not open for the petitioner to fall back from any claim and seek indulgence. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in these revision petitions warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, both these Civil Revision Petition are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J 29th July, 2010 CVRK