JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging order dated 19.07.2005 in A.T.A No.109 of 2001 and in cross objections of Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) i.e. Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru reversing the order dated 30.09.2001 of the Tenancy Tribunal- cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur in A.T.C No.84 of 1995. 2. A.T.C No.84 of 1995 was filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 under Section 16 of the Act to declare that he is a tenant of the A.T.C petition schedule property and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5, their men and supporters from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property as a cultivating tenant and for costs. 3. 3. The1st respondent contended that the property belongs to the petitioner; that she leased out the property to the 1st respondent under oral lease for a period of 4 years in the month of May, 1993 for raising Virginia tobacco therein on a yearly rent of Rs.2,000/- per acre; the lease is an oral lease and it was granted in the presence of Vempati Suryarao and Andru Sattiraju, elders; he raised Virginia tobacco during the year 1993-1994 and enjoyed the same; he paid a sum of Rs.6,200/- as rental to the petitioner and obtained Ex.A.1 receipt dated 10.04.1994; he cultivated the land during the year 1994-1995 also with tobacco and paid the rent of Rs.6,200/-to the petitioner vide Ex.A.2 receipt dated 31.05.1995; he is a protected cultivating tenant under the Act in the petition schedule property and he is not in arrears of rent; due to some disputes between the petitioner and her sisters on the one hand and himself on the other hand, with regard to the properties of the 1st respondent’s adoptive father, the petitioner became inimical to him; the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 were proclaiming that they would trespass into the petition schedule property and dispossess the 1st respondent and spoil the tobacco crop raised by him; he is in actual physical possession of the petition schedule property; his name is also mutated in the revenue record as enjoyer of the property; the Mandal Revenue Officer also issued a certificate Ex.A.3 dated 01.09.1995 through the Village Administrative Officer, Duddukuru; and therefore he should be declared as the cultivating tenant in respect of the petition schedule property and the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 should be restrained from interfering with his physical possession and enjoyment. 4. The petitioner filed a counter denying the averments made by the 1st respondent in the A.T.C. Her counter was adopted by respondents 2 to 5. 4. The petitioner filed a counter denying the averments made by the 1st respondent in the A.T.C. Her counter was adopted by respondents 2 to 5. They contended that the 1st respondent is closely related to the petitioner; she had never granted any lease to 1st respondent; the receipts Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 are not true and are forged; 1st respondent was the foster son of Vempati Papa Rao and he is also the eldest sister’s son of petitioner; 1st respondent lived with the father of the petitioner as foster son in that house; the father-in-law of the 1st respondent is an experienced litigant and had influenced the Village Administrative Officer and also Mandal Revenue Officer and got false entries made in the adangals and also obtained a certificate to the effect that 1st respondent is in possession of the A.T.C petition schedule properties; the 1st respondent filed caveat petition wherein he described himself as owner of Item No.15 of schedule property; therefore, the A.T.C is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before the Tenancy Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined PWs. 1 to 6 and marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 and on behalf of petitioner she got examined as RW-1 and marked Ex.B-1 which is copy of the served caveat petition. 6. The Tenancy Tribunal by order dated 30.09.2001 dismissed the A.T.C holding that Exs.A-1 and A2 rent receipts were issued by the petitioner; that they were proved by examining PWs.2, 3 and 6; the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5 were neighbours showed that the 1st respondent was a tenant of the A.T.C schedule property; even though the 1st respondent did not examine Vempati Suryarao and Andru Sattiraju in whose presence he claimed that oral lease was granted to him by the petitioner, still by filing Exs.A-1 and A-2, he proved that he paid rents to the petitioner for the petition schedule land; although the 1st respondent filed O.S.No. 366 of 1995 claiming ownership of all the properties, he did not mention about the A.T.C schedule property in that suit schedule; the 1st respondent had claimed oral lease only for four years i.e., 1993-1994 to 1997-1998; after 1998, there is no lease between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and therefore the relief of declaration as cultivating tenant and also consequential permanent injunction cannot be granted. 7. 7. Challenging the same, the 1st respondent filed A.T.A No.109 of 2001 before the Appellate Authority under the Act. The petitioner also filed cross objections. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Primary Tribunal that the 1st respondent is a tenant of the petitioner but held that even if the 1st respondent had claimed that the tenancy was only till 1998, he has to be evicted in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act. He therefore, allowed the appeal filed by the 1st respondent and dismissed the cross objections filed by the petitioner. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings of both the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Authority under the Act that the 1st respondent is a tenant of the petitioner is not correct; there cannot be oral tenancy in view of the language of Section 10 of the Act as amended by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy in amendment Act, 1974 which came into effect with effect from 01.07.1980; unless there is a written lease deed which is also registered, there cannot be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the 1st respondent and the petitioner; both the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal failed to note that Exs.A-1 and A-2 were forged; and they should have held that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. 10. Sri S. Surya Prakasa Rao, counsel for the 1st respondent on the other hand contended that the findings of both the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are correct insofar as they held that the 1st respondent is a cultivating tenant under the petitioner. He relied on Jandhalaya Krishna Murthy Vs Tullimilli Kotaiah ( 2005 (1) ALT 132 (D.B.), wherein it was held that a lease of land is possible even if it is not written and registered; and that a tenant can establish an oral lease by adducing necessary evidence. He relied on Jandhalaya Krishna Murthy Vs Tullimilli Kotaiah ( 2005 (1) ALT 132 (D.B.), wherein it was held that a lease of land is possible even if it is not written and registered; and that a tenant can establish an oral lease by adducing necessary evidence. He contended that even though the 1st respondent had pleaded that the lease was only for a period of four years from May, 1993, in view of the provisions of Section 10 (2) and Section 10(3) of the Act, the lease has to be treated as a lease for a period of six years which was automatically; renewable for a minimum period of six years successively; and the 1st respondent cannot be evicted without following due process of law. 11. I have considered the respective submissions of the parties. 12. Section 10 of the Act states as follows: “Section 10: Rights of cultivating tenants:- 1) Every lease subsisting at the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1974, shall be deemed to be in perpetuity. 2) Every lease entered into between a landlord and his cultivating tenant on or after the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1974, shall be for a minimum period of six years. Every such lease shall be in writing and shall specify the holding, its extent and the rent payable therefore with such other particulars as may be prescribed. The stamp and registration charges for every such lease shall be borne by landlord and the cultivating tenant in equal shares. 3) On the expiration of the period of lease referred to in sub-section (2) every such lease shall be renewable successively for a further minimum period of six years at a time. Every such renewal shall be governed by the same terms and conditions as under the original lease and be subject to the provisions of Sections 3 and 6. 3) On the expiration of the period of lease referred to in sub-section (2) every such lease shall be renewable successively for a further minimum period of six years at a time. Every such renewal shall be governed by the same terms and conditions as under the original lease and be subject to the provisions of Sections 3 and 6. 4) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force, or any custom, decree or contract to the contrary, it shall be lawful for a cultivating tenant to mortgage, or create a charge on, his interest in the land in favour of the Government, a Co-operative Society including a land mortgage bank, or any other institution, in consideration of a loan advanced to him by the Government, Cooperative Society or institution, as the case may be, under the relevant law relating to the grant of loans to agriculturists for the time being in force in the State; and without prejudice to any other remedy open to the Government, Co-operative Society or institution, in the event of the cultivating tenant making a default in payment of such loan in accordance with the terms on which it was advanced, it shall be lawful for the Government, Co-operative Society or institution, as the case may be, to cause his interest in the land to be sold, and the proceeds thereof to be applied in payment of such loan. 4) All rights of a cultivating tenant under this section shall, subject to the provisions of Sections 12 and 13, be heritable. Explanation I:- For the purpose of construing the term “heritable” in this section, the following persons only shall be deemed to be heirs of a cultivating tenant, namely:- (a) his legitimate lineal descendants by blood or adoption: (b) in the absence of any such descendants, his widow for so long as she does not re-marry: Provided that where there is more than one heir, the heirs shall be entitled to sub-divide the interest in the holding according to their shares. Explanation II:-If a cultivating tenant dies without leaving any heir as aforesaid, all his rights shall be extinguished”. 13. Explanation II:-If a cultivating tenant dies without leaving any heir as aforesaid, all his rights shall be extinguished”. 13. In JandhalayaKrishna Murthy’s case(1 Supra) the Division Bench of this Court considered the various decisions of the High Court and Supreme Court and concluded at Para 25 as follows: - “Therefore, if harmonious construction is restored to, we come to the conclusion that the lease need not be in writing and registered, but in case it is a written lease, the minimum period fixed shall be six years and the expenses for the stamp duty and the registration are to be shared by the cultivating tenant and the landlord in equal shares. Section 10 did not contemplate compulsory registration, but if lease is registered for various reasons, the charges for stamp and registration shall be borne equally. Thus, we find that it is an additional protection given to the tenant in case of any written leases, but that cannot be construed that unless there is a written lease, the tenant cannot obtain the benefits arising under the Act. The very purpose of the Act is to ensure the lease in perpetuity fixing the minimum period of lease for six years and subject to further successive renewal for minimum period of six years at a time and we also do not find any provision under the Act to the effect that if the lease is not in writing and if it is not for a minimum period of six years, the lease becomes void. Therefore, when once the provision is brought into effect for the benefit of the tenant, it has to be interpreted and given meaning so as to extend and ensure the benefit, which the statute contemplated. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that it is always open for the tenant to invoke the provisions of the Act, even in cases where the tenant is cultivating the lands by way of oral lease irrespective of period of lease. Even, a person cultivating the land under a lease as on the date when the amendment Act came into force was extended the benefit of legal fiction by deeming that such leases are in perpetuity subject to Sections 12 and 13”. 14. Even, a person cultivating the land under a lease as on the date when the amendment Act came into force was extended the benefit of legal fiction by deeming that such leases are in perpetuity subject to Sections 12 and 13”. 14. In view of this decision, it has to be held that an oral lease can be granted to a cultivating tenant by a landlord and he is entitled to protection under the Act on par with the tenant holding a written lease. 15. In Manasa Trust, Vijayanagaram Vs. Nadimpilli Satyanarayana Raju (2002 (2) Law Summary 420), this Court held that even if a lease is granted for a period of less than six years by a landlord to a tenant, in view of the mandate contained in sub-section (2) of Section 10, it has to be held that the tenancy created in favour of the tenant would continue even after the expiry of the lesser period agreed by the parties and would be continued by force of law for a period of six years. The Division Bench observed as follows:- “Therefore, the writ petitioner is a cultivating tenant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Tenancy Act. If the writ petitioner is a cultivating tenant, the provisions of Sections 10 and 13 do apply. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act mandates that every lease entered into between a landlord and his cultivating tenant after the institution of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Amendment Act, 1974 should be for a minimum period of six years and that such lease should be in writing. On the face of these mandatory provisions and in breach thereof, the Appellant-Trust granted lease to the writ petitioner only for a period of three years. However, that would not make any difference because, a cultivating tenant is entitled for a lease for a minimum period of six years by force of the provisions of sub section (2) of Section 10 and that benefit granted by the Statute to the writ petitioner cannot be taken away by the lessor by restricting lease period to lesser number of years than six(6) years. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Trust did not bring any other provisions of any Statute under which the lessor could make a departure from the mandate contained in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act and grant lease to a cultivating tenant for a lessor period than six years. Further, the provisions of Section 13 of the Tenancy Act, in its very nature, are mandatory. These provisions mandate that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 10, 11 and 12, no landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy and evict his cultivating tenant, except by the mode prescribed in the said section, that too, on the grounds specified therein, Admittedly, no action was taken by the Appellant-Trust to evict the writ petitioner from the lands in question even assuming that after the expiry of three years they could have taken steps to evict him. Therefore on a combined recording of sub-section (2) of Section 13 and sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Tenancy Act, it should be held that the tenancy created in favour of the writ petitioner continued despite expiry of the period of three years. If the tenancy of the writ petitioner was continued by force of law, it is trite, his possession should be protected by virtue of the provisions of the Tenancy Act. In other words, without dispossessing the writ petitioner from the lands in accordance with law, it is impermissible for the Appellant-Trust to dispossess the writ petitioner highhandedly and de hors the law by taking recourse to the impugned action to auction the leasehold rights of the lands”. 16. In the present case, both the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Authority have relied upon the evidence of the 1st respondent as PW-1 and the evidence of the neighbouring ryots PWs.4 and 5 to hold that the 1st respondent was a tenant of the petitioner. They also held that Exs.A-1 and A-2 receipts were issued by the petitioner to the 1st respondent and these two receipts have been proved by examining PWs.2, 3 and 6, the attestors and the scribes of Exs.A-1 and A-2; that even if the 1st respondent did not examine Vempati Suryarao and Andru Sattiraju in whose presence he is alleged to have been inducted as a tenant under an oral lease; and these facts would show that he is a tenant. They held that even if the 1st respondent had shown this in the caveat schedule and claimed to be its owner in the caveat, it was probably a mistake because in the suit i.e., O.S.No.366 of 1995 filed by the 1st respondent, he did not mention about the A.T.C schedule property in the suit schedule. 17. These findings of fact are based on appreciation of evidence on record and cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, it has to be held that an oral lease was granted by the petitioner to the 1st respondent and although the lease was initially granted from 1993-1994 to 1997-1998 i.e, four years, by virtue of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 10, the lease has to be deemed as a lease though granted for initial period of six years, stood renewed successively for a period of six years. Therefore, I hold that the view of the Primary Tribunal, insofar as it was held that there is no lease subsequent to the year 1998 and so, the 1st respondent is not entitled to any relief, is not correct. The order of the Appellate Authority under the Act is based on correct appreciation of law and the Appellate Authority has rightly held that the 1st respondent cannot be evicted without following due process of law. 18. Therefore, I find no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. 19. Miscellaneous petitions if any filed along with the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed.