Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 423 (AP)

Kondagandla Tayaramma v. Poda Ananthamma

2025-03-07

T.C.D.SEKHAR

body2025
ORDER : The present revision petition is filed against order dated 26.06.2015, passed in ATA No.1 of 2012, on the file of Appellate Authority under A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act-cum-Principal District Judge, Prakasam, at Ongole. 2. The petitioners are the owners of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.80 cents in Sy.No.210 of Tatacharyulu Agraharam Village, Ammanabrolu Mandal, Prakasam District. Initially, the petitioners/landlords filed petition under Section 12 of the A.P(A.A) Tenancy Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) vide ATC.No.21 of 2009, on the file of the Special Tenancy Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, seeking direction against respondents/tenants to vacate from the petition schedule property and to deliver possession to them. The said ATC was allowed by order dated 22.06.2012. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the respondents herein preferred Appeal under Section 16 of the Act vide ATA No.1 of 2012, on the file of the Appellate Authority under A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act-cum-Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Upon hearing the parties, the Principal District Judge, set aside the order of the primary authority and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/tenants by order dated 26.06.2015. The said order is assailed in the instant Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents. 4. It is the case of the petitioners/landlords that they have filed petition under Section 12 of the Act, seeking to evict the respondents/tenants on the ground of personal cultivation. It is their further case that the 1 st and 3 rd petitioners are residing at Tatacharyulu Agraharam Village and the 2 nd petitioner is residing in Ongole. As the petitioners/landlords want to cultivate the schedule property on their own, they have filed the petition under Section 12 of the Act, as the 3 rd petitioner is a physically disabled person, having no other source of income. It is also contended by the petitioners/landlords that they have issued statutory notice dated 30.01.2009, to the respondents/tenants, to which the respondents/tenants sent a reply on 07.02.2009. Since the respondents/tenants did not vacate the subject lands, they filed eviction petition. 5. It is also contended by the petitioners/landlords that they have issued statutory notice dated 30.01.2009, to the respondents/tenants, to which the respondents/tenants sent a reply on 07.02.2009. Since the respondents/tenants did not vacate the subject lands, they filed eviction petition. 5. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents/tenants that previously, they filed ATC No.18 of 2000, to declare them as cultivating tenants of the petition schedule property, which was allowed by the primary authority and subsequently, the said order was confirmed in ATA No.5 of 2003 on an appeal filed by the petitioners herein. It is further contended that the petitioners/landlords are the permanent residents of Ongole and have no necessity to cultivate the petition schedule property for their livelihood, as they are gainfully employed. It is further contended that the 3 rd petitioner is unmarried and physically disabled, she cannot personally cultivate the petition schedule land. It is further contended that neither the petitioners/landlords nor their parents have ever cultivated the lands during their life time. Therefore, the petition filed by them is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the petition, inasmuch as it is filed with an ulterior motive and without any bonafide requirement on their part. It is further alleged that the petitioners’ family have sold the agricultural lands in the said village except the petition schedule property. It is the further case of the respondents/tenants that the petitioners/landlords and their mother tried to sell away the petition schedule property to third parties by ignoring the tenancy rights of the respondents, despite offering to purchase the petition schedule property. Therefore, the respondents/tenants filed ATC.No.18 of 2000, as aforementioned, to declare them as tenants. In view of the same, prayed to dismiss the petition filed against them. 6. The primary authority after framing the points for consideration held that the maktha paid by the respondents/tenants are very meager and the same is not sufficient to maintain themselves. Furthermore, the 1 st petitioner is a widow and the 3 rd petitioner is physically disabled person, they required the petition schedule property for personal cultivation to eak out their livelihood, and held that, the petitioners/landlords proved the bonafide requirement by giving cogent reasons. With the above observations the primary authority allowed the petition filed by the petitioners and directed the respondents to vacate the petition schedule property and to deliver the same to the petitioners/landlords. 7. With the above observations the primary authority allowed the petition filed by the petitioners and directed the respondents to vacate the petition schedule property and to deliver the same to the petitioners/landlords. 7. As already stated, aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred an appeal vide ATA No.1 of 2012. The Appellate Court set aside the order passed by the primary authority and held that the petitioners/landlords are not residents of the village, as they reside in different places. Furthermore, it was observed that the petitioners/landlords had alienated other lands in the said village to tenants to whom it was leased out. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners/landlords cannot be believed that the subject lands are required for personal cultivation and the same is not bonafide. 8. Further, the Appellate Court has held that as per the proviso of Section 12 of the Act, the landlord is entitled to resume only half of the extant of land held by him under the lease. The Appellate Court concluded that the petitioners/landlords lacked bonafide intent and by way of impugned order, allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the primary authority. 9. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the petitioners/landlords brought to the notice of this Court that, after the primary authority allowed, they filed execution petition vide EP No.3 of 2013. Upon hearing the said petition, the Execution Court issued warrant, to Field Assistant, so as to deliver the petition schedule property to the petitioners/landlords. Accordingly, the petition schedule property was handed over, and the petitioners/landlords were inducted into possession by order dated 08.04.2015. Although, the petition schedule property was handed over to the petitioners/landlords, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Court, and consequently, the Appellate Court, by order dated 26.06.2015, allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/tenants. 10. This Court by order dated 01.10.2015, directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the petition schedule property as on that date while ordering notice to the respondents. Meaning thereby, the petitioners/landlords are in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the present revision petition, inasmuch as the respondents/tenants were evicted from the petition schedule property, and the same was handed over to the petitioners/landlords on 08.04.2015, in EP.No.3 of 2013. 11. Meaning thereby, the petitioners/landlords are in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the present revision petition, inasmuch as the respondents/tenants were evicted from the petition schedule property, and the same was handed over to the petitioners/landlords on 08.04.2015, in EP.No.3 of 2013. 11. Though the possession was handed over to the petitioners/landlords, the same is denied by the respondents/tenants and contended that they are in possession of the petition schedule property. But no material is placed on record to show their possession over the disputed lands. Be that as it may, on a perusal of the order passed by the primary authority, it is clear that the respondents/tenants are also cultivating some other lands apart from the petition schedule land. The same is not denied by the respondents in their pleadings. Thus, it is clear that the respondents/tenants are in possession of other lands apart from the petition schedule property. Therefore, it cannot be believed that the respondents/tenants have no other lands except the petition schedule lands. 12. Further, on a perusal of the order of the primary authority, it is clear that the respondents have stated that, initially the makthas/lease amount was deposited in the court during the pendency of ATC No.18 of 2000, which is filed seeking to declare them as statutory tenants. After disposal of the said case, it is contended by the respondents/tenants that the maktha was sent by way of money order but the petitioners/landlords refused to receive the same. It is not in dispute that from the date of filing of petition under Section 12 of the Act, by the petitioners/landlords, the respondents/tenants did not pay maktha. Despite the same, the respondents/tenants did not take any steps to see that the makthas is paid as provided under Section 7 of the Act. It is incumbent on the part of the cultivating tenant to pay maktha regularly without any default to the landlords and in case the landlord refuses to receive the same appropriate steps need to be taken seeking the leave of the Court to deposit the same before the concerned Court. Admittedly, in the present case for the reasons best known to the respondents/tenants they did not choose to deposit the rents before the Court by filing the application as provided for under Section 7 of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case for the reasons best known to the respondents/tenants they did not choose to deposit the rents before the Court by filing the application as provided for under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, it can be held that respondents/tenants did not pay the maktha to the petitioners/landlords since the date of filing of the petition under Section 12 of the Act. Further, once there is a default on the part of the tenants, then the landlords can also invoke Section 13 of the Act, so as to terminate the tenancy and evict the cultivating tenants. As already stated in the instant case the respondents/tenants for the reasons best known to them did not choose to pay maktha to the land lords. On this ground also the petitioners/landlords are entitled to seek eviction of the respondents/tenants. 13. Further, the Appellate Court failed to consider the status of the 1 st petitioner, who is a widow, and the 3 rd petitioner, who is a physically disabled person, instead observed that, they had never cultivated the land, thereby concluded that there was no good faith on their part to personally cultivate the subject land. The said finding of the Appellate Court is nothing but perverse, as the need for the petitioners/landlords arose only after the death of their parents. Furthermore, the maktha paid by the respondents/tenants was very meager and the same is not sufficient to eak out their livelihood. Merely because the property was not personally cultivated by the petitioners/landlords prior to the filing of the petition will not disentitle them from invoking Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the finding of the Appellate Court is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. 14. Apart from the same, as already stated supra, during pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Court, the petitioners/landlords filed an execution petition vide EP.No.3 of 2013, and the petition schedule property was also delivered to them on 08.04.2015. The said order has attained finality and the respondents/tenants also did not take steps to challenge the same. Further, the said factum was also not brought to the notice of the Appellate Court during the pendency of the appeal. From the above, it is clear that the possession of the petition schedule property was handed over to the petitioners/landlords. The said order has attained finality and the respondents/tenants also did not take steps to challenge the same. Further, the said factum was also not brought to the notice of the Appellate Court during the pendency of the appeal. From the above, it is clear that the possession of the petition schedule property was handed over to the petitioners/landlords. Further, the respondents/tenants have not taken any steps seeking restitution of the petition schedule property, after the order passed in EP.No.3 of 2013. Admittedly, while issuing notice, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo existing as on that date in the matter. In view of the same, it is clear that the petitioners/landlords are in possession of the schedule property. Though the counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the same and contended that the respondents/tenants are in possession of the petition schedule property, he failed to place any material before this Court in support of his contentions. Further, it is an admitted fact that the respondents/tenants have not paid maktha to the petitioners/landlords from the date of filing of the petition till date, which goes to show that the respondents have defaulted the payment of maktha and thereby the petitioners/landlords are also entitled to seek eviction as provided under Section 13 of the Act. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the Appellate Court in ATA No.1 of 2012, dated 26.06.2015, on the file of the Appellate Authority under A.P.(A.A). Tencancy Act-cum-Principal District Judge, Prakasam, at Ongole, is not sustainable, and accordingly, the same is set aside by upholding the order dated 22.06.2012, passed in ATC No.21 of 2009, on the file of the Special Tenancy Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.