THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.4729 of 2006 Date: 19.01.2011 Between: Pellikuturamma Perantallu Devasthanam, Atchanta, West Godavari District, Rep.by Managing Trustee … Petitioner AND Chilukuri Satyanarayana … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR C.R.P.No.4729 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is the landlord. It is a temple. The respondent is one of the farmers of the temple. The respondent filed a petition in ATC No.95 of 1990 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Officer (Tenancy), Palakol, West Godavari District under Section A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act seeking for the remission of the rent for the sarva crop of 1990. The respondent-tenant sought for the remission on the ground that the entire crop was affected by tungro virus and that the tenant could not realize the produce from the crop. 2. The landlord, who is the revision petitioner herein, resisted the application. The landlord contended that the crop was not affected by any virus. The landlord further claimed that the crop of the tenant did not suffer from any natural calamity and that the tenant, therefore, could not invoke Section 8 of the Act. The tenant examined himself as PW.1. He examined the neighbour as PW.2. The landlord, on the other hand, examined the Managing Trustee of the petitioner- temple as RW.1. He also examined another farmer as RW.2. 3. The Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Palakol appointed an Advocate Commissioner to visit the crop and submit a status report. The Advocate Commissioner accordingly visited the land under the cultivation of the respondent-tenant and filed his report which is Ex.C.1. The learned Advocate Commissioner considered that the crop was completely damaged on account of tungro virus. 4. Notice before inspection of the lands was not given by the learned Advocate Commissioner. Holding that the very report under Ex.C.1 becomes non est, the learned Special Officer refused to place reliance upon Ex.C.1. The learned Special Officer considered that in view of the evidence of RW.1 supported by RW.2, the tenant upon whom the initial burden rist failed to establish that the crop was affected by tungro virus. Consequently, the Special Officer dismissed the tenancy case. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. Through the impugned judgment, the learned Principal District Judge reversed the finding of the Special Officer. He found that the crop was indeed affected by tungro virus and granted remission to an extent of 50% of the rent payable by the tenant. The landlord-temple preferred this revision assailing the order of the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. 6. This is a peculiar case. On the one hand, the learned Advocate Commissioner held that the crop was affected by tungro virus and that the yield of the crop has drastically reduced. At the same time, technically the very report of the Advocate Commissioner has become non est, where the learned Advocate Commissioner would appear to have executed the warrant without notice to the temple authorities. 7. Again the very tenant is described to be 63 years old. The dispute relates to the year 1990, which is more than two decades ago. It would be unjust to remit the case at this stage to the trial Court directing both sides to let in further evidence to prove the respective claims and it would be impossible for either side to procure evidence about the stage of the crop of 1990 at this stage. 8. Therefore, a balance is liable to be struck between the claim of the petitioner-landlord and the claim of the respondent- tenant. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case where the incident relates to a period of over two decades ago and where the Commissioner’s report is to the effect that the crop of the tenant was affected by tungro virus, it would be just and proper to accord remission to an extent of 25% of the amount payable by the tenant to the landlord. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is ordered reducing the remission of 50% awarded by the appellate Court to 25% remission of the amount payable by the tenant to the landlord. No costs. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 19.01.2011 Isn