( 1 ) THE petitioner is the tenant in respect ot Ac. l. 08 cents ot land in R. S. No. 234/2 of Ramavaram Village, owned by the respondent. The tenancy is said to have commenced in the year 1989, on the basis of an oral transaction. While, according to the petitioner the rent for the land was Rs. 600/- per annum, payable on or before telugu New Year, according to the respondent, it was 8 quintals of jaggery to be tendered by the end of March, every year. The respondent filed A. T. C. No. 22 of 1992 before the Tenancy tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground that the latter committed default in payment of rent. He has also filed O. S. No. 87 of 1992 in the same court for recovery of rent for the years 1989 to 1992. A. T. C. and suit were dismissed on 25-03-1996. A. S. ,no. 22 of 1996 filed against the decree in the suit was also dismissed, on 23-03-2004. Subsequently, the respondent filed A. T. C. No. 31 of 1996 the same forum, for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground that he committed default in payment of rent for the years 1992-03 to 1995-96. O. S. No. 60 of 1997 was filed for recovery of the said arrears. The Tenancy Tribunal allowed the A. T. C. No. 31 of 1996 through order dated 22-10-2003. The suit was however, dismissed. The petitioner filed A. T. A. No. 36 of 2003 against the order in A. T. C. , before the appellate Authority-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari, at rajahmundry. The A. T. A. was dismissed on 20-07-2006. Hence, this revision. ( 2 ) SRI P. Satyanarayana, learnd counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal has negatived the contention, that the rent was payable in kind, i. e. 8 quintals of jaggery, per year, and dismissed the eviction petition, whereas in the present round, -eviction was ordered on the strength of, almost the same pleadings. He contends thai when the suit for recovery of rents for the years 1992-93 to 1995-96 was dismissed, there does not exist any basis for ordering eviction, on the ground that default was committed for that very period. ( 3 ) SRI. He contends thai when the suit for recovery of rents for the years 1992-93 to 1995-96 was dismissed, there does not exist any basis for ordering eviction, on the ground that default was committed for that very period. ( 3 ) SRI. T. S. BHASKARA Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the A. T. C. No. 22 of 1992 and O. S. No. 87 of 1992 were dismissed on the ground that there did not exist any default, whereas in the present set of proceedings, it was clearly established and in fact, not denied by the respondent, that rent for the years 1992-93 to 1995-96 was; not paid. He further contends that dismissal of the suit was on the ground that the rent was deposited in the court, subsequently, whereas the eviction was ordered on the ground that it was not paid within time. ( 4 ) THE respondent failed in the first round of litigation, in her attempt to evict the petitioner herein. The basis for dismissal of the earlier set of proceedings, does not fall for consideration. The respondent filed A. T. C. No. 31 of 1996, seeking eviction of the petitioner, by alleging that he committed default for four agricultural years, between 1992 to 1996. In his counter affidavit, the petitioner stated that the rent for the year 1993-94 was paid to the Advocate of the respondent, since the latter refused to receive the same. As regards the rent for the years 1993-94, he is said to have filed I. A. No. 295 of 1994, in A. T. C. No. 22 of 1992, seeking permission of the Court to deposit the rent, and that it was dismissed, since the quantum was in dispute. He further pleaded that for the years 1993-96, he offered the rent to the respondent and her father, and ultimately when they did not receive it, he sent it by way of demand drafts, with a notice dated 11-05-1996, through his Advocate, and that it was not received. On these facts, the petitioner pleaded that he cannot be said to have committed any default. ( 5 ) EVEN if the version pleaded by the petitioner is to be accepted, it remains that the rents for the years, referred to above, remained unre-mitted. On these facts, the petitioner pleaded that he cannot be said to have committed any default. ( 5 ) EVEN if the version pleaded by the petitioner is to be accepted, it remains that the rents for the years, referred to above, remained unre-mitted. His efforts to make deposit of the rents into the Tribunal, did not fructify with the dismissal of I. A. No. 275 of 1994. It was all the more reason why the petitioner should have taken further steps, in the matter of payment of rent. At least, for the year 1993-94, there was an effort on the part of the petitioner, to deposit the rents in the Tribunal. For the subsequent years, he did not even file such an application. It is a matter of record, that the rents for the three years i. e. 1993-96 were sent through a notice/covering letter, dated 11-05-1996. The facts pleaded by the petitioner, himself, clearly demonstrated that there was default in payment of tne rents, at least for three years. Therefore, the eviction was to follow, as a matter of course, and that is what the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority did. ( 6 ) IT is no doubt true that O. S. No. 60 of 1997 filed by the respondent for recovery of the rents for the years, referred to above, was dismissed. This factor, by itself, cannot lead to an inference, that there did not eixist any default in payment of rent. The parameters for adjudicating the incidence of non-payment of rent under the A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, on the one hand, and the right of a landlord, to recover the amount for the corresponding years, are totally different. Irrespective of the intention, acts and omissions of the parties, once it emerges that rent was not paid within the stipulated time, eviction has to ensue. The basis for adjudication of a suit for recovery of the amount, on the other hand, stands on a different footing. The claim in such suits must be, as regards the liquidated amount, and the contract in between the parties must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. The question of limitation etc. , would become relevant. The basis for adjudication of a suit for recovery of the amount, on the other hand, stands on a different footing. The claim in such suits must be, as regards the liquidated amount, and the contract in between the parties must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. The question of limitation etc. , would become relevant. For example, if a tenant committed default in payment of rent, for a particular year, and the suit is filed three years thereafter, for recovery of the said amount, it is liable to be dismissed. The consequences flowing from the default would remain intact, even after three years. There can be so many other differences, in the matter of adjudication of these two categories of disputes. Therefore, the mere fact that the suit for recovery of the amount was dismissed, cannot be treated as a factor to dismiss the petition for eviction, even after it is proved, on the admission of the petitioner himself, that there was default in payment of rent. ( 7 ) THIS Court does not find any basis to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Tribunal and the Appellate authority. The C. R. P. is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a standing crop and it would take for some time for the petitioner to harvest the same. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted time till 31-03-2007, subject to the condition that the rent, for the current crop season, and the arrears, which have accrued so far, are paid by tine end of December, 2006. In default, it shall be open to the respondent to enforce the order of eviction. There shall be no order as to costs. .