Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1309 (AP)

Vepa Venkateswarlu v. Nagisetti

2003-10-24

P.S.NARAYANA

body2003
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred by Vepa Venkateswarlu, the petitioner in a. T. C. No. 3 of 1986 on the file of the Tenancy tribunal/district Munsif, Narsipatnam, aggrieved by the reversing order made in a. T. A. No. 11 of 1991 by the Appellate authority/district Judge, Visakhapatnam. ( 2 ) THE original revision petitioner died pending the civil revision petition and the legal representatives have been brought on record. Vepa Venkateswarlu, the petitioner in A. T. C. No. 3 of 1986 on the file of the tenancy Tribunal/district Munsif, narsipatnam had filed the said ATC against the said respondents for payment of rents for the years 1983,1984 and 1985 onwards and also prayed for delivery of possession of the schedule lands after evicting the respondents/ tenants on the ground that they had committed default in payment of rents. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the Tenancy Tribunal/district Munsif, narsipatnam had recorded the evidence of p. W-1 and R. W-1 and also had marked documents Exs. A-1 to A-17 and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondents/tenants had committed default and hence the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for by an order dated 24-10-1991. The tenants aggrieved of the same had preferred A. T. A. No. l1 of 1991 on the file of the appellate authority/district Judge, visakhapatnam and during pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant died and appellants 8 and 9 were added as legal representatives of the 1st appellant as per orders dated 24-03-1994 in I. A. No. 2119 of 1993. The respondents/tenants filed I. A. No. 776of 1995 praying the Court to permit them to file additional counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents in A. T. C. No. 3 of 1986 wherein a specific stand was taken that the land in question formed part of Kotauratla estate and after abolition of the said estate, these parties who are the cultivating tenants have no permanent occupancy rights and are entitled to ryotwari pattas and the rights of the land holders became extinguished under the Madras Estates Abolition Act and they had also taken a stand that suppressing the said fact Vepa Venkateswarlu filed a. T. C. No. 3 of 1986 under Section 13 of the a. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1980 (?) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Several other factual details had also been narrated. As can be seen from the material available on record before the appellate authority/district judge, Visakhapatnam, Exs. A-18 to A-21 and exs. B-1 to B-41 were marked. After elaborate discussion, the appellate authority/district judge, Visakhapatnam had arrived at a conclusion that the application under section 13 of the Act is not maintainable since the respondents/tenants were no longer tenants on the date of filing of the said ATC under the Act and hence they are not liable to be evicted. ( 3 ) SRI Subrahmanyam Narasu, learned counsel representing the appellants had submitted that the appellate authority in fact had not decided the question of default which had been decided by the primary tribunal but had reversed the order of the primary tribunal on different grounds. The learned counsel also pointed out that when additional new pleas had been taken at the appellate stage instead of affording proper opportunity, the appellate authority/district judge, Visakhapatnam had proceeded to decide with the matter after marking the documents. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the light of the facts and circumstances it is clear that the case set up by the respondents in I. A. No. 776 of 1995 is totally inconsistent with their stand taken in their original counter in A. T. C. No. 3 of 1986. The learned counsel also had made elaborate submissions relating to the nature of the land and also applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act and also the findings relating to doctrine of res judicata recorded by the appellate authority/ district Judge, Visakhapatnam. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, the learned counsel representing the respondents/tenants would contend that when the appellate authority came to the conclusion on the jurisdictional issue that the tenancy tribunal has no jurisdiction at all to entertain an application under Section 13 of the Act, there is no need or necessity of going into the further question whether the tenants had committed default or not. The learned counsel also maintained that in the light of the findings recorded on the additional documents marked before the appellate Authority/district Judge, visakhapatnam, it is clear that the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked at all and hence the very ATC filed by Vepa Venkateswarlu is not maintainable. The learned counsel also maintained that in the light of the findings recorded on the additional documents marked before the appellate Authority/district Judge, visakhapatnam, it is clear that the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked at all and hence the very ATC filed by Vepa Venkateswarlu is not maintainable. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded in detail in paras 9 to 15 by the appellate authority and had contended that absolutely there is no illegality committed by the appellate authority warranting interference under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 5 ) HEARD both the counsel and perused the findings recorded by the primary tribunal and also the appellate authority/district judge, Visakhapatnam. ( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that as contended by sri D. Ramalinga Swamy the findings in detail had been recorded by the appellate authority/district Judge, Visakhapatnam relating to the applicability of the provisions of the Act and the maintainability of the atc. It is pertinent to note that certain other litigations were there between the parties like the judgments in Small Cause Suits s. C. Nos. 19 and 20 of 1986. Apart from this aspect of the matter, when at the appellate stage the respondents/tenants were permitted to raise additional grounds by raising additional pleas, it cannot be said that reasonable opportunity had been afforded to the parties since the findings had been recorded by the appellate authority/district Judge, Visakhapatnam by just marking Exs. A-18 to A-21 and exs. B-1 to B-41. Section 16 (2) of the Act reads as follows: against any order passed by the Special officer under this Act an appeal shall lie to the District Judge having jurisdiction, within thirty days of the passing of the order; and the decision of the Distinct Judge on such appeal shall be final. Rule 18 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy rules, 1980 reads as follows: nature of proceedings: (1) All proceedings before the Special officer or the District Judge under the Act shall be summary and shall be governed, as far as may be by the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908. Rule 18 of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy rules, 1980 reads as follows: nature of proceedings: (1) All proceedings before the Special officer or the District Judge under the Act shall be summary and shall be governed, as far as may be by the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908. (2) Any party shall, in any proceeding before the Special Officer or the district Judges, be entitled to be represented by his agent or legal practitioner; ( 7 ) AS can be seen from the language employed in Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Act read with Rule 18, though the procedure to be followed is a summary procedure when new pleas and additional pleas had been taken at the appellate stage and several factual aspects and disputes relating thereto are to be decided, it is not advisable and desirable on the part of the appellate authority just to mark the documents and then to proceed to record the findings relating thereto. In such cases, the better course to be adopted by the appellate authority/district Judge, Visakhapatnam under the Act would be to remit the matter to the primary tribunal with a direction to afford proper opportunity to both the parties to let in evidence and decide the additional questions raised in accordance with law. It is pertinent to note that here is a case where atc was filed on the ground of default but, totally, on a different ground that the very atc is not maintainable, the appeal was allowed. I am thoroughly satisfied that the appellate authority/district Judge, visakhapatnam had committed an illegality in not affording proper opportunity to both the parties to let in necessary oral evidence touching the factual disputes between the parties. In view of the same, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to remit the matter to the Primary tribunal / Tenancy Tribunal / District Munsif, narsipatnam for the purpose of affording opportunity to both the parties and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 14-07-1997 on the file of the appellate authority/district judge, is hereby set aside. ( 8 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.