SUNKARA SEETHA MAHALAKSHMI Vs. THOTA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/appellant under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, in A.T.A.No.01 of 2017, dtd. 9/8/2017 wherein and whereby learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the rejection orders passed by learned trial Judge in unnumbered A.T.C filed by the petitioner. The revision petitioner has filed petition before Special Officer under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act-cumPrincipal Senior Civil Judge at Gudivada under Ss. 12 and 13 of the Act read with Rule 5(1) and Rule 6(1) of Tenancy Rules, 1980 against the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent, for delivery of possession of petition schedule property and for costs.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the statutory tenant in respect of the petition schedule property, which he has taken on lease from one Mr.Borra Koteswararao on 5/9/2008 for a period of ten years under lease agreement. She submits that she dug fish pond by spending Rs.30,00,000.00 and she alleged that said Borra Koteswararao obtained lease agreement from ten other farmers and along with other farmers, Borra Koteswararao has also got land in the petition schedule property. The petitioner submits that she was given right to sub-lease the schedule property to third parties and she has been paying rents regularly to Borra Koteswararao. The contention of the petitioner is that on 18/10/2012, she sub-let the petition schedule property to the respondent for a period of three years and ten months, but the respondent failed to pay balance rent of i.e.,Rs.80,000.00 for the

(3.) rd year and he has to pay the fourth year's ten months rent i.e.,Rs.8,33,333.00 in total respondent has to pay Rs.9,13,333.00 as per sub lease agreement, which he failed to pay and then she issued notice demanding arrears of rent and advance amount from the respondent. The petitioner submits that the respondent got returned the said registered notice, but filed suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.235 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gudivada and aggrieved by the orders in OS.No.235 of 2015, she preferred appeal before XI Additional District Court, Gudivada and she also filed O.S.No.123 of 2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Gudivada wherein she filed petition in I.A.No.478 of 2016, which was dismissed and then she preferred revision petition before this Court. It is also the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondent falsely claiming that he had paid rents to Borra Koteswararao and he alleged that he spent Rs.2,00,000.00 for repairs and paid some balance amount to her. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent colluded with Borra Koteswararao and tried to disposes her from the petition schedule property due to which she filed A.T.C.No.05 of 2015, which dismissed by the Court and also petitions filed therein and then she preferred appeal against the said Orders. The petitioner also alleged that she handed over a boat, residential house to the workers and godown, bamboos, nylon ropes, which all are mentioned in the lease agreement and the material which has to be returned to her. Hence, she filed petition for recovery of arrears of rent and delivery of possession of petition schedule property. 3. Learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada before registering A.T.C. rejected the same by passing orders on the ground that the petition schedule property is a fish tank due to that A.T.C. is not maintainable for fish tanks under the Tenancy Act. Aggrieved by the orders passed by learned Special Officer, the petitioner preferred civil miscellaneous appeal, which is also dismissed by learned Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam by observing that fish pond/aqua-culture does not come under the purview of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 because the transaction in between the petitioner and the respondent is not a transaction relating to agriculture and confirmed the rejection orders passed by learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.