ADAPALA VENKATA RANGA RAO Vs. RAVELLE SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is at the instance of the respondent in the eviction petition under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act against the orders of the Principal District Judge and the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, Guntur in A.T.A. No.52 of 1994, dated 25-9-1998.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petition schedule land is jointly owned by the 1st respondent in the revision petition and her husband. Further, it was also the case of the 1st respondent that her husband died on 15-8-1985. Therefore, she is the absolute owner of the property and the petitioner herein is the tenant. She filed a petition under Section 13(e) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground that he has denied the title of the 1st respondent herein. It is also her case that the petitioner has set up an Agreement of Sale dated 14-12-1984 in respect of an extent of Ac.2-50 cents which was claimed to have been executed by the husband of the respondent and has even received full consideration. This was claimed to be a denial of the title of the 1st respondent herein to the property. Hence sought for eviction. Though the total extent of Ac.4-70 cents was shown in the schedule to the tenancy petition, admittedly a sale-deed was executed by the 1st respondent's husband in respect of an extent of Ac.0-70 cents. Therefore the Tenancy Court has confined the claim to the balance extent of Ac.4-00. The Tenancy Court after recording the evidence and considering the rival contentions and documentary evidence filed before it, held that the petitioner/tenant had denied the title of the 1st respondent to the properly by setting up an Agreement of Sale said to have been executed by her husband. The said action amounts to willful denial of title of the 1st respondent herein. Hence ordered eviction. This was contested by the Revision Petitioner before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, which was registered as A.T.A. No.52 of 1994. The Appellate Tribunal after considering all aspects elaborately held that though the title of the landlady in respect of the petition schedule land was not specifically denied but has set up an agreement of sale, which was denied by the landlady, amounts to denial of her title and thus confirmed the orders of eviction passed by the Tenancy Court. Against the said order of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not dispute the title of the 1st respondent insofar as the land to an extent of Ac.1-50 cents is concerned and insofar as the balance extent of land i.e., Ac.2-50 cents also he has not denied the title but claimed that an Agreement of Sale was executed by the husband of the 1st respondent after receiving the full consideration and therefore the petitioner did not pay the rents payable in respect of Ac.2-50 cents of land while continuing to deposit the rents with reference to Ac. 1-50 cents. The learned Counsel also contended that insofar as the agreement of sale executed by the husband of the 1st respondent is concerned a suit vide OS No.82 of 1985 was filed in the Sub-Court, Tenali but the same was dismissed. However, against the said judgment and decree an appeal was filed and the same is pending. It is suited that if his suit for specific performance is decreed he is entitled for possession of the property and therefore it is contended that the revision may be heard and disposed of along with the appeal filed by the petitioner.