N S RAMAKRISHNA MURTHY Vs. B SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of by this common order as all of them are directed against the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada in A.T.A. No.23 of 1995 and cross-objections, on 6-10-1998. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in A.T.C. No.7/88.

(2.) Petitioner No.l in A.T.C. No,7 of 1988 is the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Second petitioner died during the pendency of the proceedings and as such petitioner Nos.4 to 7 were brought on record as his legal representatives as per orders in LA. No.1039/91, dated 22-11-1993, The schedule land consists of Ac-28.83 cents situated in Golaprolu village. Admittedly, it belongs to the first petitioner and his two sons viz., the deceased second petitioner and the third petitioner. First petitioner got another son by name Gopikrishna. It is the case of the petitioners that there was an agreement of sale between themselves and the first and second respondents, which, however, could not fructify into final transaction. According to them, there was a partition among the family members. It is their further case that the first and second respondents remained in possession of the schedule land as tenants on payment of Maktha of (105) Kata bags of paddy, which was subsequently enhanced to (125) bags and ultimately to (140) bags of paddy. It is the case of the petitioners that during the year 1985-86 and 1986-87, respondent Nos.l and 2 paid only part of Maktha of Rs.16,100-00 and Rs.18,200-00 respectively. The payments were accepted by the petitioners under protest by issuing notices Exs.A-7 and A-9 dated 10-3-1986 and 1-3-1987 respectively. For the year 1986-87, the third respondent is stated to have sent a draft for a sum of Rs.16,100-00 on 17-3-1988, which was returned by the landlord. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone are the tenants but not the third respondent. It is their further case that the respondent Nos.l and 2 have sublet the schedule land in favour of the third respondent. Under those circumstances, the petitioners filed eviction petition - A.T.C. No.7 of 1988 on the ground that there was delayed payment of Maktha for three years, as the Maktha was not paid by the stipulated date of 15th January of every year and also on the ground of sub-lease in favour of the third respondent by the first and second respondents.

(3.) Respondent Nos.l and 2 took the plea that the third respondent, who is in possession of the land is a tenant and the agreement of sale was not cancelled. There is no relationship between the petitioners and the first and second respondents as tenant and landlords. It is also their case that the third respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule land since 1980 as cultivating tenant. It is the case of the third respondent that he is a tenant holding over the property and the rent is being paid by him from time to time as agreed by the first petitioner. There are no arrears of rent whatsoever payable by the third respondent. In view of the amendment of the provisions of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (for short 'the Act') he has acquired permanent rights. Respondent Nos.l and 2 have never paid any Maktha nor they were in possession of the schedule land at any point of time. The petitioners having received Maktha from him failed to issue any receipts for the year 1988. It is the case of the third respondent that the petitioners maliciously took the plea as if the first and second respondents are the tenants. Maktha of (105) bags was not enhanced to (125) bags as alleged by the petitioners.