Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 238 (AP)

Hayat Begum v. Khadar Sharif

2009-04-06

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2009
ORDER The petitioners filed A.T.C.No.5 of 1991 before the Special Officer, under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (for short 'the Act')-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, West Godavari, at Eluru, against the respondents for the relief of eviction from agricultural land. Through its order dated 30-10-2003, the trial Court allowed the A.T.C. The respondents filed A.T.A.No.52 of 2003 before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Judge (for short 'the Tribunal'), West Godavari at Eluru. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on 24-01-2005. Hence, this C.R.P. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal was mostly guided by the fact, that the respondents herein filed O.S.No.959 of 2004 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, for declaration of title; and strictly speaking, that factor ought to have been the basis, to dismiss their appeal. He contends that the trial Court was satisfied, that the respondents committed default in payment f rent, and even the respondents did not deny the same in their appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners failed to prove the tenancy between themselves and the respondents and that the Tribunal took the same into account. He contends that when there was no tenancy between the respondents and the appellants (sic. petitioners), the question of wilful default does not arise. 4. The petitioners pleaded that they are the owners of AC.1 .54 cents of land in Ponangi Village of Eluru, and that the respondents are their lessees. The maktha was said to be 10 bags for sarva and 5 bags for dalva crop. They have also stated the manner in which they have acquired the property. The respondents flatly denied the very existence of tenancy. According to them, the schedule property and another extent, totalling to AC.2.73 cents was purchased by the father of the 1st respondent, and thereafter, it was devolved upon them. In view of this denial, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Court to decide the question as to the existence of the tenancy. 5. The 2nd petitioner deposed as P.W.1. The documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A-1 to A-9, comprised of notices etc. None of the documents have any bearing upon the existence of tenancy. The trial Court proceeded on the assumption that it is for the respondents to prove the absence of tenancy. 5. The 2nd petitioner deposed as P.W.1. The documentary evidence in the form of Exs.A-1 to A-9, comprised of notices etc. None of the documents have any bearing upon the existence of tenancy. The trial Court proceeded on the assumption that it is for the respondents to prove the absence of tenancy. The discussion undertaken in this regard reads as under: "Para-14: ....Though the respondents contended that there is no landlords and tenants relationship between the petitioners and respondents and not committed willful ,default and denial of the title of the petitioners/landlords, no supported iota evidence projected by the respondents before the Court. The uncorroborated evidence of R.Ws. 1 to 3 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 not supported the case of the respondents. The oral evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3 and documentary evidence Exs.B-1 to B-3 not supported the case of the respondents and they are no way helpful to the case of the respondents". "Para-16: I n the light of the foregoing facts, circumstances and of my discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents/tenants have miserably failed to establish that there is no landlords and tenants relationship between the petitioners...." 6. The approach of the Tribunal is totally untenable. The Act is a special enactment, intended mostly to protect the rights of the tenants. When the tenancy is seriously disputed, the petitioner, in an application for eviction, is under obligation to prove the tenancy. 7. In the instant case, there is no written document, evidencing the tenancy. In certain cases, the tenancy can be proved through oral evidence also, by establishing payment of maktha, at least for certain years. Even P.W.1 did not state, that any maktha was paid, and as to, at what point of time it was discontinued. The Tribunal took these aspects into account, and held that the petitioners failed to prove the existence of any tenancy, in their favour. 8. It is no doubt true that, reference was made to O.S.No.959 of 2004, by the Tribunal. It cannot, however, be said that the judgment of the Tribunal was solely based upon it. Even now, the petitioners can avail the opportunity in O.S.No.959 of 2004, to prove the title in their favour, and if successful in that regard, can claim ancillary reliefs also. 9. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.