MAREPPA G Vs. T PADMAVATHI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 10-3-2000 in A.T.A. No.2 of 1989 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order passed by the Principal District Munsif-cum- Tenancy Tribunal, Madanapalle on 18-7-1989 in A.T.C. No.2 of 1980. The petitioner herein is the tenant. The matter arises under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The respondents filed A.T.C. No.2 of 1980 under Section 10(3), 13 and 16(1) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule property and for delivery of the same. The Tribunal allowed the A.T.C. No.2 of 1980, against which the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in A.T.A. No.2 of 1989. The learned Appellate Judge allowed the said appeal on merits. The same was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.4332 of 1991 remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the appellate Tribunal. That is how A.T.A. No.2 of 1989 was taken up for fresh hearing by the learned appellate Judge.

(3.) The eviction petition was mainly filed on the ground that on 14-2-1969 late Ramakrishna Rao and the petitioner herein had entered into an agreement and that the petitioner agreed to take the petition schedule lands on lease for six years. The land was required to be made fit for cultivation by the petitioner. It was further agreed that for the first three years there should not be any rent charged for the land, but for the subsequent three- years, the petitioner should pay Rs.820.00 per annum to late Ramakrishna Rao. Possession was accordingly delivered to the petitioner under the said agreement. It is the case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioner herein failed to discharge the obligations as agreed under the agreement dated 14-2-1969. The petitioner failed to pay the rents to late Ramakrishna Rao for the year 1974-75 and set up an oral agreement of sale in his favour by late Ramakrishna Rao and thereby committed breach of covenant with a view to continue to be in illegal occupation of the land even after the expiry of the period of lease.