THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
CRP Nos.219 of 2012 and Batch
13.09.2012
CRP No.219 of 2012
P. Dharma Rao
Sunkari Indira Das
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy
Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K.V. Simhadri
<Gist
>Head Note
?Citations
CRP Nos.219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 235 and 236 of 2012
C.R.P. No.220 of 2012
G.Vasidevarao..Petitioner
Sunkari Indira DasRespondent
C.R.P. No.221 of 2012
B. Appala Swamy Petitioner
Sunkari Indira Das ..Respondent
C.R.P. No.222 of 2012
K.Appanna Petitioner
Sunkari Indira Das Respondent
C.R.P. No.223 of 2012
T. Kannayya Petitioner
Sunkari Indira Das .. Respondent
C.R.P. No.235 of 2012
P. Bhaghayam and another Petitioners
Sunkari Indira Das Respondent
C.R.P. No.236 of 2012
P. Basavayya . Petitioner
Sunkari Indira Das .. Respondent
COMMON ORDER:
In all these revisions, the challenge is to the orders passed by the District
Judge & Appellate Tribunal under A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956,
Srikakulam in the appeals filed by the landholder, the respondent herein.
The sole respondent in all these revisions filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2009 and batch
before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Special Officer, Tekkali pleading that the
respective petitioners herein were inducted as tenants in different bits of land
held by her mother and they refused to pay the rents even during the life time
of her mother. It was also pleaded that several litigations persisted about the
land among the family members and when she demanded rents, the petitioners did
not pay the same and thereby, committed default. The petitioners filed counters
denying the very title of the respondent. The Special Officer upheld the title
of the respondent herein in respect of bits of land. However, it dismissed the
A.T.Cs., through separate orders, dated 14.06.2004, observing that though the
respondent proved her title over the land, she failed to prove the existence of
relationship of landlady and tenant.
The respondent filed A.T.A.No.6 of 2004 and batch before the Appellate Tribunal.
The appeals were allowed through separate orders, dated 26.09.2011. It was held
that since the petitioners were paying the rent (rajabhagam) to the mother of
the respondent, the tenancy stood established and on account of the failure to
deposit the rents regularly, they incurred the liability to be evicted. The
said orders are challenged in this batch of revisions.
Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the
respondent has not even specified the quantum of rent and it is just un-
understandable as to how the plea as to default of payment of rent can be said
to have been established. He submits that the enormous delay in filing the
petitions for eviction itself would disclose that the respondent was in doubt as
to her rights over the land. Other grounds are also urged.
Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits
that the delay in filing the petitions for eviction was caused on account of
series of litigations that ensued among the family members and soon after the
disputes were resolved, she filed the petitions for eviction. He submits that
the petitioners did not dispute that they are the tenants of the mother of the
respondent and once the original landlady died, the respondent has succeeded to
her rights. He further submits that the petitioners did not pay or tender rents
to anyone even while admitting the fact that they are the tenants in respect of
the land.
Before the Special Officer, the respondent deposed as P.W.1 and on her behalf,
P.W.2 was also examined. Exs.A1 to A10 were filed. Ex.A1 is the certified copy
of the title deed and Ex.A2 is the pattadar pass book issued by the Tahsildar in
respect of the said land. Exs.A3 to A7 are receipts of land revenue, and Ex.A8
is the Will executed by the mother of the respondent in her favour. The
judgment in O.S.No.38 of 1990 was filed as Ex.A9, and Ex.A10 is the death
certificate of the mother of the respondent. Except that the respective
petitioners deposed as R.W.1, they did not adduce any other oral evidence, much
less did they adduce any documentary evidence.
As mentioned earlier, the Special Officer dismissed the petitions for eviction
on the ground that the respondent failed to establish the relationship of
landlady and tenant even while upholding her title to the land. The Appellate
Tribunal, however, reversed that finding and directed eviction of the
petitioners.
Two aspects assume significance in matters of this nature. The first is title
to the land and the second is existence of relationship of landlady and tenant.
In the petitions for eviction filed by the respondent, the Special Officer held
that the respondent proved her title to the land. The petitioners did not
challenge that finding.
Once the title of a person over a piece of land is upheld, he is entitled to
recover the possession thereof, if it is in the hands of third parties. If the
person in possession is a tenant, his eviction can be sought just by issuing
notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, if the
tenancy is governed by the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, different
legal consequences ensue. It confers certain benefits upon the tenants. It is
only when the default is committed in payment of rents, that the tenant would
become liable to be evicted.
The petitioners are admittedly in possession of the land and the title of the
respondent in respect of the said land was accepted by the Special Officer on
the basis of the oral and documentary evidence. Once the title is established,
the petitioners, being the persons without any title were under obligation to
state the nature and character of their possession. One plea raised by them was
that the subject matter is an inam land and they are in possession and enjoyment
of the same. Even if that were to be true, they did not take any steps to get
ryotwari pattas. Though absence of such steps cannot by itself lead to an
inference that they are tenants, the plea raised by the respondent that
rajabhagam i.e. the rent was being paid till the year 1984 to her mother and
thereafter, the petitioners stopped it was not refuted effectively. Further,
the petitioners did not adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate the
nature of possession otherwise than in the capacity of the tenants. The
Appellate Court has applied the correct principles of appreciation of evidence
and held that an inference must be drawn as to the existence of relationship of
landlady and tenant. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding,
particularly when the appellate forum happens to be a last Court on facts, under
the enactment.
Hence, the civil revision petitions are dismissed.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients may be given
reasonable time to vacate the land. This request is opposed by the learned
counsel for the respondent.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are
granted time till 31.01.2013, subject to the condition that:
(a) they shall file an affidavit within four weeks from today before the Special
Officer to the effect that they will put the respondent in possession of the
respective bits of land on or before 31.01.2013; and
(b) they shall clear the arrears of rent payable up to date within four weeks
from today.
There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions also stand disposed of.
______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dated:13.09.2012
