APHC010033772024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1359/2024 Between: 1. REDDY VENKATA RAO, S/O. KONDAYYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. REDDY SATYANARAYANA, S/O. TIRUPATHI RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O- D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. MUDDA RAVIKANTH, S/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. BUSINESS, D.NO. 45-6-26/6, OLD HOSPITAL STREET, JAGANNAICKPUR, KAKINADA. 2. REDDY TIRUPATHI RAO, (DIED) 3. REDDY SUNDARA MANIKYAM, W/O TIRUPATHI RAO, AGE 60YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA MANDAT, 4. REDDY KONDALA RAO, S/O. TIRUPATHI RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL. 5. KORA PARVATHI, W/O. V.V.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, 2 KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL. 6. REDDY UMA PARVATHI, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL. 7. REDDY SUDHEER, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. STUDENT, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL. 8. REDDY MANI TEJA, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. STUDENT, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgement and decree dated 16.02.2021 in A.T.A. No. 7 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Appellate Authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (Principal District Judge), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram In dismissing the appeal and confirming the Order and Decree dated 07-09-2017 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the court of Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Interim STAY of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Order and Decree dated 07-09-2017 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the court of Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada as dated 16.02.2021 In A.T.A. No. 7 of confirmed by order and decree 2019 on the file of the Court of the Appellate Authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (Principal District Judge), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of above Revision, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SULTANA SHAIK 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: Assailing the correctness and legality of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority under Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956, (Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari), in A.T.A.No.7 of 2018 under AP Tenancy Act, confirming the orders passed by the Special Officer cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 07.09.2017 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The petitioners herein are the appellant Nos.1 & 5 in A.T.A.No.7 of 2018 and respondents in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015. The respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 and respondent No.1 in A.T.A.No.7 of 2019 and respondent No.1 herein. 3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are that the 1st respondent herein filed Andhra Tenancy Case vide A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 under Section 13 of Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1980, to order for eviction of respondents therein from the schedule property on the ground of willful default of payments of rents, costs of the petition and for other such reliefs on the ground that the petitioners who are tenants failed to pay agreed makta for the year 2013-14 & 2014-15. The petitioners and other respondents in the A.T.C opposed the said 4 application by filing their counters inter alia contending that they are not defaulters and they have paid makta and they are protected tenants under law and petitioners have no right to file the said Tenancy Case. The Court below, after hearing the parties, framed the following points for consideration: i. Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction of the respondents from the schedule property as prayed for? ii. To what relief? 4. The said A.T.C has been allowed under its order dated 07.09.2017 directing the petitioners herein to vacate the petition schedule property and deliver the vacant possession within three months and if they failed to deliver the vacant possession, the 1st respondent herein is entitled for eviction from the petition schedule property under due process of law. Assailing the said order, the petitioners herein preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority under Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act (Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram) in A.T.A.No.7 of 2019. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal under its order dated 16.02.2021 confirming the orders passed in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015. Assailing the said orders, the present CRP came to be filed. 5. Heard Ms.Shaik Sultana, learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the counter filed in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 and the grounds of appeal before the Appellate Authority and the grounds of revision contended that the 5 petitioners are the protected tenants and they have paid the amounts maktha in time and the 1st respondent, with an intention to make the petitioners as defaulters, refused to receive the legal notice and the bankers cheques which was sent towards maktha and thereby filed the said ATC with an intention to evict them from the property wrongfully. These aspects were not dealt by the Court below. Without looking into the documents and evidence on record, the Court below erroneously ordered eviction and the Appellate Authority, in a mechanical manner dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners confirming the orders of the Special Officer. If the petitioners are evicted, in the said circumstances of the orders, their rights will be affected, as such, prayed to allow the CRP. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions. 8. The 1st respondent filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 under Section 13 of Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1980, to order eviction of the petitioners on the ground that they are defaulters in paying the rents (yearly maktha). The petitioners, while denying the allegations of the petition, contended that they have paid the amounts in time and the bankers cheque which was sent along with notice was refused by the landlord only to show that the petitioners are defaulters and to take away the property forcibly. The Special Officer made points for consideration i.e., Whether the petitioner is entitled for eviction of the respondents from the schedule property as prayed for ? and to what relief? and examined the 6 1st respondent as PW1 and petitioners & others were examined as RW1 and marked EX.P1 to P3 on behalf of the petitioners and R1 to R2 on behalf of the respondents. 9. A perusal of the orders impugned in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 clearly indicate that the respondents in their cross examination have not paid the total maktha for the agriculture year 2013-14 and as such, they committed willful default. It further would clinchingly show that during their cross examination, the petitioners herein combinedly has to pay maktha at one time but on perusal of the pleadings it does not reveal as to when the 2nd petitioner have paid the maktha for the alleged year 2014-15. As they have failed to pay maktha, they were declared as willful defaulters and thereby ordered eviction with a further direction to petitioners herein to vacate the petition schedule property and deliver vacant possession. Assailing the said decreed order dated 07.09.2017 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015, the petitioners herein preferred A.T.A.No.7 of 2019. 10. The appellate Court has made the following point for consideration: Whether the trial Court Order and decree is sustainable under law or warrants interference?. 11. The trial judge as well as the appellate Judge, upon perusal of the cross examination evidence of the petitioners, have come to the conclusion that even on their own showing there is a default in payment of maktha to a tune of Rs.2000/-. 7 12. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, on perusal of the material available on record and the evidence let in by the parties, and admittedly, as the petitioners are defaulters, have rightly dealt with the case and passed orders, and the same warrants no interference and this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 31st March, 2026 RKS