KOPVVURI SUBBARAJU Vs. KARRI BABURAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the landlord, by way of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the orders dated 16-12-1996 passed in A.T.A. No.3 of 1995 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, at Visakhapatnam, allowing the appeal at the instance of the respondents-tenants, and setting aside the orders of eviction passed in A.T.C No.15 of 1991, dated 20-2-1995 on the file of the Special Officer-under Andhra Tenancy Act-cum-Principal District Munsif at Yellamanchili.

(2.) The petitioner has initially filed the application under Section 13 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act') seeking eviction of the respondents-tenants from the land in Sy.No.469, admeasuring Ac.6.00, situated at Geddapalem of Koruprolu Village, alleging that the father of Respondent No.l was the cultivating tenant of the suit land for the last 20 years under the petitioner's vendor, namely, Sri Achalla Appala Narasimham, who sold the land to the petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 19-7-1979 and was put in possession. The said tenant had relinquished all his rights as per the deed dated 27-7-1979 after receiving a sum of Rs.5000/- and delivered the possession. However, subsequent to the death of the said tenant, the Respondent No.l, who is the son and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the daughters were interfering with his possession of the property. Therefore, he filed a suit in OS No.37 of 1979, which was renumbered on transfer as OS No.6 of 1984 on the file of sub Court at Anakapalle for perpetual injunction. After regular trial, the suit was dismissed holding that the petitioner is the purchaser but not in possession and the father of the respondents is tenant and that alleged surrender is not valid, and contrary to Section 14 of the said Act. Since the respondents are in possession, and they have committed default in payment of rents, the petition is filed.

(3.) Contesting the application, the respondents denied the allegations in the application, except to the extent of proceedings in the suit. It is their case that there is no default in payment of rents. Further, it is stated that during the pendency of the suit, a receiver was appointed and the lease hold rights were auctioned and the amounts were deposited. As against the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court, the petitioner has unsuccessfully approached to the District Court and this Court. These facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.