M VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. P VENKATA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner. The landlord filed a suit for permanant injunction on the basis of the xerox copy of the agreement dated 1-3-1988 stating that surrender of land has been effected on 1-3-1983 itself but the tenant was making attempts to interfere with his possession on 3-5-88 The tenant resisted the application stating that the document has been fabricated and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this case as the suit itself is not maintainable. The tenant also took an objection that Section 14(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') contemplates a particular procedure to be followed in the case of surrender of holding by the cultivating tenant and the sunender proceedings have not been initiated or a cepted by the Tenancy Court, aad therefore the question of taking possession or surrendering possession in pursuance of the xerox copy of agreement does not arise. The landlord relied upon Ex. A-1, a bunch of photos and negatives and Ex. A-2, the photostat copy of letter executed by the tenant. The tenant relied upon Exs. B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and B 5 to show that there were long standing disputes between the landlord and the tenant in connection with eviction proceedings and the tenant succeeded in all his attempts and retained his possession and the relationship of landlord and tenant still exists as on the date of the filling of the suit.

(2.) The learned District Munsif, on the basis of the various documents and also in view of the contentions granted temporary injunction observing that by that time the land was kept vacant and made ready for transplantation and it is established that the landlord himself has raised a mixed crop in the schedule property. On appeal by the tenant, the learned Subordinate Judge found that though there is relinquishment of land, the surrender of possession of the land to the landlord is not in accordance with Section 14 of the Act, but the evidence on record shows that the tenant has surrendered possession of the land to the landlord and the landlord has been in possession of the same from 1-3-1988 and confirmed the order of temporary injuntion passed by the trial Court, it is against that concurrent finding the tenant filed the prebent revision petition.

(3.) There were long standing disputes between the landlord and the tenant. Several attempts have been made by the landlord to get the tenant evicted from the schedule land but he failed in all his attempts. W.P. Nos. 1782 end 1839 of 1985 filed by the tenant were allowed by this Court and W.A. Nos. 368 and 369 of 1980 filed by the landlord were dismissed holding that the tenant cannot be ordered to be evicted for default in payment of advance rentals on 1st October, 1986. The other proceedings that have been initiated also resulted in favour of the tenant.