KESAVA JANARDHANA Vs. A PULLARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a common judgment in writ petition Nos. 8660 and 8994 of 1989 and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. Writ AppealNo. 111 of 1993 relates to Writ Petition No. 8994 of 1989 and Writ AppealNo. 976 of 1992 relatesto Writ PetitionNo. 8660o f 1989. Both the writ petitions were brought by each of the tenants assailing the orders of the appellate tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 directing their eviction from the lands for default in payment of rent. In both the writ petitions, the appellant in writ AppealNo. 976of 1992was the 1st respondent The petitioner in writ petition No. 8660of 1989 was cultivating Devasthanam's land to the extent of acres 3-24 1/3 cents on a maktha of Rs. 2,210/-p.a, payable by the 15th Januaryof every year. Default was committed by him for the year 1980-81 since only Rs. l,879-70was paid in time and the balance of Rs. 330-30 was not cleared despite notice, Ex A-2, dated 10-3-1981.

(2.) A.T.C.NO. 19/84 was filed on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Munsif Magistrate's court at Alamuru, East Godavari district on 24-10-1981 and thereafter the arrear amount was paid on 19-11 -1981. The primary tribunal dismissed the case holding there having been no wilful default. On appeal the order was reversed by the appellate tribunal which directed, by its order dated 23-3-1989, eviction. In the common judgment the learned single Judge observed that as substantial amount has been paid in time,the writ petitioner-lstrespondent in the appeal cannot be equated with a defaulter who has not paid anything at all.

(3.) So far as Writ Appeal No. 111 of 1993 is concerned, the writ petitioner in the corresponding writ petition No. 8994of 1989 was cultivating an area of acres 2.25 cents with rent fixed at 41 bags of paddy payable by the15th January of every year. Out of the rent fixed, 13 bags 45 kgs of paddy was payable to the Devasthanam and the rest to the Archakas. Default was committed for the year 1980-81 for which AT.C.No. 21/84 was filed before the same officer. But, the case was dismissed holding there to be no wilful default. The order was reversed on 23-3-1989 by the appellate tribunal in AT.A.No. 124/86. By the common judgment the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the tenant as against which the appeal has been preferred.