BHAVAJI MUTT, J. ( 1 ) THE Civil Revision Petitions are filed by sri Bhavaji Mutt, Singarayapalem represented by its Executive Officer Under article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders made in C. M. A. No. 115 of 1991, CM. A. No. 116 of 1991, CM. A. No. 117 of 1991, C. M. A. No. 118 of 1991 and c. M. A. No. 119 of 1991 dated 31st July, 1997 by the learned District Judge, Krishna, machilipatnam, where under the orders made on 31st October, 1991 in A. T. C. No. 37 of 1987, A. T. C. No. 38 of 1987, A. T. C. No. 39 of 19987, A. T. C. No. 40 of 1987 and A. T. C. No. 41 of 1987 by the Special Officer-cum- principal District Munsif, Gudivada had been reversed. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner-mutt is that the Mutt is the owner of the total extent of ac. 38. 80 cents in R. S. No. 70 corresponding to old survey number of Bethavolu village and the said land was originally a grant to sevadas Bhavaji for Sadavarthi and there after the land was devolved upon Krishnadas, jayramdas, Gangadas, Bharidas and others and the respondents were the tenants and their successors and they have been cultivating these lands as tenants and hence they have to pay the agreed rent due to the petitioner-mutt. The petitioner-mutt filed suits for recovery of possession and ultimately they were decided by the High court that the said grant is not a grant to the mutt. But it is an individual grant and the respondents have been enjoying the said property without paying any rent either to the individual or to the institution and in the meanwhile the Matadipathi of the mutt i. e. , the original grantee from whom the respondents had taken the lease passed away. It is also stated that the said property had merged with the other properties of the mutt and thus the petitioner mutt became the owner of the aforesaid land and in view of the death of the Matadhipathi subsequent to that the petitioner mutt issued notice demanding payment of arrears of rent from the respondents/tenants or their legal heirs. The respondents no doubt had denied the stand taken by the petitioner mutt. The respondents no doubt had denied the stand taken by the petitioner mutt. The learned Special Officer-cum-Principal district Munsif after recording the oral evidence and marking the documents, allowed the A. T. Cs. filed by the petitioner mutt and aggrieved by the same the respondents filed C. M. A. 115 of 1991, C. M. A. 116 of 1991, C. M. A. No. 117 of 1991, c. M. A. No. 118 of 1991 and C. M. A. No. 119 of 1991 where in the Appellate authority the learned District Judge, Krishna, machilipatnam, had reversed the said judgment of the Special Officer-cum- principal District Munsif and aggrieved by the same the present C. R. Ps. are preferred by the Petitioner Mutt. ( 3 ) ELABORATE submissions had been made by both Sri P. R. Prasad, representing the petitioner mutt and also Sri G. Dharmarao, the counsel representing the respondents. In fact, both the counsel had pointed out several aspects regarding the prior litigation, the effect thereof and also pointed out the relevant provisions under Act 17 of 1966 and also Act 30 of 1987. Reliance was also placed on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Kami reddi. In all fairness the counsel for the petitioner-mutt had submitted that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in state of Andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Kami reddi, the remedy under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 is no longer available to the petitioner-mutt and hence, liberty may be given to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate competent authority under the provisions of Act 30 of 1987. In State of andhra Pradesh v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi (2001 (6) Supreme page 481 at paras 14 and 15, it was held by the Apex Court. "we may sum up the upshot of our discussion. (1) That charitable or religious institution or endowment fall into a separate category and form a class by themselves. If that is so, tenants coming under them also form separate class. "we may sum up the upshot of our discussion. (1) That charitable or religious institution or endowment fall into a separate category and form a class by themselves. If that is so, tenants coming under them also form separate class. Therefore, they can be treated differently from others; (2) In operation of the Act it is possible that it may result in hardship to some of the tenants but that by itself will not be a consideration to condemn the Act; (3) The manner in which the charitable or religious institution or endowment would deal with the properties that are resumed after the provisions of Section 82 of the act come into force by cancelling the existing leases is in the region of speculation. (4) Fresh tenancy can be entered into and there is no material before the court as to what was the rent paid by tenants at the time when the Act came into force in terms of section 18 (2) of the Act or as provided under the Andhra Act or under the Telangana Act. In the absence of a such material, it would be hazardous for the court to reach any conclusion one way or the other to state that the tenants would be frozen and, therefore, there is no likelihood of charitable or religious institution or endowment getting higher rents. If there is no material one way or other, the presumption that the Act is good prevails. (5) It is a matter of policy with the legislature as to whether all provisions of the tenancy Acts should be exempt in its application to the charitable or religious institution or endowment in their entirety. (6) The identification of landless poor persons and protection given to them is justified as enunciated earlier. (7) It will be very difficult to predict at this stage that the result of section 82 of the Act would be so hazardous as not to achieve the object for which it was enacted. It would not only result in displacing the old tenants by new tenants, it may also achieve other social objectives in another manner. If appropriate provisions are made under the Rules and if the leases are given to small holders of land, another social objective could be achieved. It would not only result in displacing the old tenants by new tenants, it may also achieve other social objectives in another manner. If appropriate provisions are made under the Rules and if the leases are given to small holders of land, another social objective could be achieved. ( 4 ) LOWHAT manner charitable or religious institution or endowment would deal with matters of this nature is a mere guess work at this stage. On some hypothetical approach the High Court could not have declared a law to be invalid. ( 5 ) IN the light of the discussion made above, we hold that the tenants of the institutions in question fall into a separate class which is identifiable. If that is so, what is to be next considered is whether the cancellation of the lease in their favour would achieve the objectives of the Act. We have demonstrated that there is no material before the Court to show that such cancellation would not carry out the purposes of the Act, whether the legislature should have gone ahead to exclude the applicability of the tenancy Acts in their application to the charitable or religious institution or endowment is another matter" ( 6 ) IN view of this legal position since the remedy under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra area) Tenancy Act, 1956 is no longer available to the petitioner-mutt, it would be just and equitable to grant liberty to the petitioner- mutt to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate competent authority under the pro visions of Act 30 of 1987, If the petitioner- mutt is so advised in this regard. Except granting this liberty no other relief can be granted in the present batch of C. R. Ps. It is needless to say that in view of the said direction, this Court had not touched the merits and demerits of the matter. Both parties are at liberty to raise all the contentions and all the objections before the appropriate competent authority in this regard. ( 7 ) THE Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.