NALLAMSETI VEERAGHAVULU APPARAO Vs. SANGISETTI RAMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in respect ot Ac.l .08 cents ot land in R.S.No.234/2 of Ramavaram Village, owned by the respondent. The tenancy is said to have commenced in the year 1989, on the basis of an oral transaction. While, according to the petitioner the rent for the land was Rs.600/- per annum, payable on or before Telugu New Year, according to the respondent, it was 8 quintals of jaggery to be tendered by the end of March, every year. The respondent filed A.T.C.No.22 of 1992 before the Tenancy Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground that the latter committed default in payment of rent. He has also filed O.S.No.87 of 1992 in the same Court for recovery of rent for the years 1989 to 1992. A.T.C. and suit were dismissed on 25-03-1996. A.S.,No.22 of 1996 filed against the decree in the suit was also dismissed, on 23-03-2004. Subsequently, the respondent filed A.T.C.No.31 of 1996 the same forum, for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground that he committed default in payment of rent for the years 1992-03 to 1995-96. O.S.No.60 of 1997 was filed for recovery of the said arrears. The Tenancy Tribunal allowed the A.T.C.No.31 of 1996 through order dated 22-10-2003. The suit was however, dismissed. The petitioner filed A.T.A.No.36 of 2003 against the order in A.T.C., before the Appellate Authority-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry. The A.T.A. was dismissed on 20-07-2006. Hence, this revision.

(2.) Sri P. Satyanarayana, learnd counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal has negatived the contention, that the rent was payable in kind, i.e. 8 quintals of jaggery, per year, and dismissed the eviction petition, whereas in the present round, -eviction was ordered on the strength of, almost the same pleadings. He contends thai when the suit for recovery of rents for the years 1992-93 to 1995-96 was dismissed, there does not exist any basis for ordering eviction, on the ground that default was committed for that very period.

(3.) Sri.T.S.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the A.T.C.No.22 of 1992 and O.S.No.87 of 1992 were dismissed on the ground that there did not exist any default, whereas in the present set of proceedings, it was clearly established and in fact, not denied by the respondent, that rent for the years 1992-93 to 1995-96 was; not paid. He further contends that dismissal of the suit was on the ground that the rent was deposited in the court, subsequently, whereas the eviction was ordered on the ground that it was not paid within time.