THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS:2897 & 2900/2025 COMMON ORDER:- C.R.P.No.2897 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur in C.M.A.No.2 of 2024. 2. C.R.P.No.2900 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur in C.M.A.No.1 of 2024. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is bonafide purchaser of the ATC schedule property from his vendor, since the ATA was allowed in favour of his vendor. Then after finalization/crystallization of rights in favour of his vendor, he acquired valid title through a valid registered sale deed. After having acquired the title in respect of ATC schedule property, the revenue officials mutated the name of the petitioner as pattadar and he was issued revenue records recognizing him as pattadar and also possessor of the subject property. He further submits that the revenue record which was issued in favour of the petitioner clearly proves his possession over the subject property. While so, the respondent herein assailed the subject order dated 28.08.2018 passed in A.T.A.No.1 of 2018 without impleading the petitioner herein as party respondent by preferring C.R.P.No.6224 of 2018 and invited an ex-parte order, which is not 2 binding upon the petitioner. He also submits that since the petitioner being a bonafide purchaser acquired the title through a registered title deed, he is entitle to possess the property without there being any interference or hindrance from any quarter. To enforce the rights of the petitioner, he filed O.S.No.215 of 2022 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Parchur seeking permanent injunction and also filed I.A.No.426 of 2022 seeking ad-interim injunction against the respondents herein. Wherein, the trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.426 of 2022 and considered I.A.No.92 of 2022, which is filed by the respondent herein seeking injunction and the same was allowed. Both the orders were assailed by way of C.M.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur. After hearing both the learned counsel, the lower appellate Court dismissed both the C.M.As filed by the petitioner herein vide common order dated 21.08.2025. Assailing the same, the present C.R.Ps are filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order dated 17.02.2020 passed in the C.R.P.No.6224 of 2018 was assailed before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of S.L.P.No.010054 of 2020 and the same is pending for adjudication. Therefore, the orders of the lower appellate Court are liable to be interfered and C.R.Ps should be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner herein is not a bonafide purchaser. The petitioner acquired the property pending the proceedings before this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition. He further submits that this court after hearing both sides categorically held that the respondents herein are recognized Tenants and their tenancy rights 3 cannot be brush aside and also found fault with the judgment rendered by the trial Court as well as appellate Court in ATC No.1 of 2008 as well as ATA No.1 of 2018 respectively. This Court while upholding the evidence on record set aside the order of the trial Court as well as appellate court, by which the respondents herein were recognized as admitted Tenants in respect of the ATC schedule property. He further argues that any transfer or sale by the vendor of the petitioner is subject to tenancy rights of the respondents herein. He also drawn the attention of this Court to the common judgment passed by the lower appellate court in C.M.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2024 dated 21.08.2025, wherein it is observed that in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in C.R.P., the sale deed relied by the petitioner herein is non est and invalid in the eye of law. Therefore, the petitioner cannot canvas about rights over the property much less possession against the subject property. He further asserts that the orders passed by the lower appellate court do not warrants any interference of this Court and present C.R.Ps are liable to be dismissed with costs. 7. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record and particularly order passed in C.R.P No.6224 of 2018. The fact remains that the respondents herein are the admitted Tenants of ATC schedule property and they have been in possession of the same. The vendor of the petitioner herein filed ATC for eviction of the respondents herein. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein acquired the subject property pending proceedings before this Court. It is settled law any acquisition subject pending civil proceedings is always subject to the result of the final orders of the Court, 4 therefore the petitioner herein cannot plead any equities for non-impleading him as party respondent. Moreover the revision petition is continuous proceedings against the orders of ATC No.1 of 2008 and ATA No.1 of 2018. For appreciation of the evidence and considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, it is appropriate to extract the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.6224 of 2018, hereunder: “35. Basing on the facts and circumstances, in para 86 of this ruling, when there was proof that the rents were accepted by the landlords subsequent to the default and when there were no arrears due from the tenant on the date when the eviction petition was filed by the landlord, the following observations are recorded:- “86. The Tahsildar found that the rents were accepted by the landlord subsequent to the default and that there were no arrears due from the tenant on the day when the eviction petition was filed by the landlord. We are satisfied that although the case set up by the tenant has not been fully established, even then the landlord accepted the rent for all the four years admittedly subsequent to the grace period within which the rent ought to have been paid under Section 13 of the Act. The landlord knew well that the tenant has committed a default and has failed to pay the rent within the prescribed time. Even then he accepted the rent and continued the tenant in possession on the same terms and conditions. The old tenancy thus, as a result of the receipt of rent, continued. The legal consequence of so receiving the rent for all the four years and particularly for the last year is that the landlord must be deemed to have waived and in fact 5 waived his right to determine the tenancy and evict the tenant by filing the application to the Tahsildar under Section 13(a) of the Act.” 36. In the light of the proof offered by the petitioners basing on the very statement of P.W.1 that the rent due for the years 2007-08 was paid and that there were no arrears, which was the situation on the date of institution of the eviction petition, in view of the above observations in this ruling, which is a binding authority, it leaves no manner of doubt that the petition by the respondents before the tenancy Tribunal had no foundation or basis. Unfortunately, these vital circumstances were clearly overlooked by the courts below making out such grounds, which did not have any foundation and directed eviction of the tenants. 37. The averments in the counter by the petitioners in the tenancy Tribunal laid the foundation, setting out such facts to raise a plea of waiver. However, it was not specifically pleaded. Nonetheless, in the presence of such foundational facts averred in the counter when the evidence on record stands to support such averments, the contention advanced by the petitioners shall be accepted in this respect. The conduct of the respondents in the given facts and circumstances, clearly amounted to waiver of their claim. 42. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the orders dated 28.08.2018 in ATA No. 1 of 2018 of the appellate Tribunal as well as the orders dated 27.02.2018 in ATC No. 1 of 2008 of the tenancy Tribunal. Consequently, ATC No.1 of 2008 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6 8. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the lower appellate court specifically held that the respondents herein were recognized as lawful Tenants in respect of ATC schedule property. In view of the judgment of this Court, the claim of the petitioner herein under Ex.P.1 is non est in the eye of law as held in C.M.A.NOs.1 & 2 of 2024. 9. In view of the settled proposition of law, once the rights of the respondents were recognized as Tenants by way of judgment of this Court, basing upon the revenue record which was issued pursuant to the acquisition by way of sale deed cannot stand to contravene the rights of the respondents herein. Therefore, the orders passed by the lower appellate Court does not warrants any interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 23.12.2025 TPS 7 27 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.2897 & 2900 of 2025 23.12.2025 TPS