ORDER The petitioner claims to be a complete family. It filed A.T.C. No.6 of 1996 before the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, with a prayer to declare that it is the cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.1.31 cents of land in survey No.8/3A of Ankisettipalli Village, Madanapalle Mandal of Chittoor District. It was pleaded that the land was owned by one Mr. R. Subramanyam Sastri, the father of respondents 1 to 3 herein, and that he gave it on lease to Sri Bayyanna, on sharing basis, several decades ago. Bayyanna is said to be part of the composite family. It was stated that the land surrounding the schedule property was owned by the petitioner. The basis pleaded for filing the A.T.C, is that subsequent to the death of Subramanyam Sastri, his wife and respondents herein were threatening to dispossess them from the land. 2. On behalf of respondents, a counter affidavit was filed, raising an objection as to the maintainability of the A.T.C It was alleged that, neither there exists any composite family, nor Mr. Matli Subbanna is its Manager. It was also pleaded that there does not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant, between the petitioner and the respondents. 3. Through its order, dated 15-4-2002, the trial court allowed the A.T.C, declaring that the petitioner is the cultivating tenant. The respondents filed AT. A No.2 of 2002 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. This appeal was allowed, on 27-9-2004. Hence, this C.R.P. 4. Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the land was very much under the possession and cultivation of the petitioner's family and that there is nothing in law, which prohibits the land being held by the family as tenant also. He contends that the rent was being paid in the form of share, out of the yield, and no disputes have arisen during the life time of the original landlord. He further submits that the lower appellate court adopted a very narrow and technical approach to the definition of the tenant and has reversed the well-considered judgment of the trial court. 5. Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the pt respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') recognizes the individuals, as tenants, and not any family, much less composite families. 5. Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the pt respondent, on the other hand, submits that the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') recognizes the individuals, as tenants, and not any family, much less composite families. He further submits that Bayyanna, who was said to be a tenant, was very much alive, and still a different person approached the Court, in a camouflaged manner. 6. The A.T.C was filed by the petitioner for the relief of declaration to the effect that it is the cultivating tenant, in respect of the schedule property. The respondents denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, between themselves and the petitioner. The trial court allowed the ATC, and the same was reversed by the lower Appellate Court. 7. The principal contention urged on behalf of the respondents was about the maintainability of the A.T.C itself. Before this Court also, extensive arguments are advanced in relation to the question whether the petitioner answers the description of the cultivating tenant. 8. The expression "cultivating tenant" is defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act. It reads: "cultivating tenant" means person who cultivates by his own labour or by that of any other members of his family or by hired labour under his supervision and control, any land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, but does not include a mere intermediary." 9. It does not take, in its fold, entities, other than persons. It is not out of place to mention that the Act is part of agrarian reforms and the intention of the reforms was to ensure that the individuals who cultivate the land, are conferred with certain benefits. If at all the families become relevant in the entire scheme, it is only those who hold the land. From the point of view of tenant, it is invariably the individual, who actually cultivates the land, that is recognized as such. It is also relevant to refer to the definition of 'tenant' under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. From the point of view of tenant, it is invariably the individual, who actually cultivates the land, that is recognized as such. It is also relevant to refer to the definition of 'tenant' under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Section 5 of that Act reads as under: "Persons deemed to be tenants: A person lawfully cultivating anyland belonging to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant it such land is not cultivated personally by the landholder and if such person is not- (a) a member of the landholder's family, or (b) a servant on wages payable in cash or kind, but not in crop share or a hired labourer cultivating the land under the personal supervision of the landholder or any member of the landholder's family, or (c) a mortgagee in possession. (Proviso is not necessary for the purpose of this case.)" 10. Even from this, it is evident that the beneficiaries under the enactments of this nature are individuals and there is no scope to include the families, or groups of persons, to b~ treated as tenants. 11. In the instant case, the description of the plaintiff disclosed that it was not even a family, but a composite family, which, in turn, is said to be comprising of families headed by Bayyanna, Gangullappa and Subbanna. When the definition does not permit in it, even a composite family cannot be treated as a tenant. The question of a composite family, being treated as tenant, does not arise. 12. There is a serious flaw in the very proceedings initiated by the petitioner. According to the recitals in the petition and the evidence adduced by the petitioner, the land is said to have been leased in favour of Bayyanna. That person is very much alive and available. Things would have been different altogether, had he filed the A.T.C. Mr. Subbanna, who neither cultivated that land, nor was, at any point of time, inducted as tenant, has chosen to institute proceedings by wearing the mantle of representative of a composite family. The word 'composite family' does not appear anywhere in the scheme of the Act. 13. The lower Appellate Court has analysed the relevant facts and held that the ATC. was totally untenable. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The word 'composite family' does not appear anywhere in the scheme of the Act. 13. The lower Appellate Court has analysed the relevant facts and held that the ATC. was totally untenable. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the land has since been acquired by the Government. 14. Therefore, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.