PUPPALA APPA RAO Vs. YELISETTI VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Puppala Appa Rao, the unsuccessful tenant before both the Tribunals below is the revision petitioner. The respondent herein, Yelisetti Vasantha Kumari, had filed ATC No. 19/96 on the file of Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of maktha for 1984-85 and 1985-86 and the learned Special Officer, on the respective pleadings of the parties, had recorded the evidence of PW1, PW2, RW-1 and RW-2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A10 and Exs.B-1 to B4 and ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that the landlady is entitled to the relief prayed for and ordered eviction by order dated 22-6-1988. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed A.T.A. No.27/ 98 and the landlady filed A.T.A. No.29/98 and the Appellate Tribunal-III Additional District Judge, Kakinada by order dated 4-8- 2003 had dismissed both the Appeals. The tenant, aggrieved by the order made in A.T.A. No.27/98 had preferred the present civil revision petition. The landlady who had preferred ATA No.29/98 relating to the dispute of quantum of maktha had not preferred any revision and the said order became final.

(2.) Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner/tenant had submitted that the petitioner/tenant never committed any default in payment of maktha at any point of time. The learned Counsel also submitted that the stand taken by the landlady relating to the maktha had been disbelieved and the learned Counsel also would maintain that when the demand draft was delivered the landlady initially refused to receive, but subsequently had encashed the same and in view of the fact that there were no arrears at all as on the date of filing of the ATC, the ATC itself is not maintainable and the learned Counsel also contended that it should be taken that the ground of default also had been waived by the landlady. The Counsel placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Ugle, the learned Counsel representing the landlady in all fairness had submitted that the fact remains that the maktha was decided as 72 kata bags 354 per year and though the landlady had preferred ATA as against the said finding, since the appellate authority had dismissed the same, the said finding became final and hence the learned Counsel submitted that this can be taken as 72 kata bags per year only. The learned Counsel had further maintained that there is no question of applying any doctrine of waiver in the present case since there was no plea at all. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the conduct of the tenant and had explained the prior litigations in OS No.313/86 and OS No.630/92. The Counsel also contended that PW-1 had clearly stated that she had encashed the demand draft without prejudice to her contentions and hence in the light of the clear concurrent findings recorded by both the Tribunals below, this Court should be reluctant to interfere with such findings under Article 227. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on the decisions made by this Court in CRP No.2647/2003 and had also placed reliance on Deity Shri Kesava Janardhana and Venugopala Swamy Varlu v. A. Pulla Rao and others, 1996 (2) ALD 1211 = 1996 (2) APLJ 283 (DB).