In a civil revision petition challenging orders declaring no landlord-tenant relationship, the High Court held there were no errors of law or perversity in the lower courts' findings and dismissed the petition.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AIVIARAVATI
TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6473 OF 2Q1fi
Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2018 in C.M.A.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam confirming the orders passed in ATC.No,2 of 2009 dated 10.08.2016 passed by the learned Special Officer (Tenancy Cases) Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
Between:
Kondeti Panduranga Rao, S/o Kutumba Rao aged 76 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o H.No.11-89 Vundi vari street, Kankipadu(V and M) Krishna District.
...Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner
AND
years, Occ. House Wife, R/o Korada (v), Gudlavalleru(M) Krishna District, Krishna,
(Respondent Nos.3 and 5 added as legal Representatives of Respondent No.2 as per Orders in I.A.No.195/2014 dt.17-6-2015)
...Respondents
lA NO: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land i.e. an extent of AC. 1-00 in RS. No.113/1/A and 111/1 situated at Kankipadu (V&M) Krishna district, suit property in ACT No.2 of 2009 on the file of Special Officer (Tenancy cases) and Additional Junior Civil Judge Vijayawada, Krishna District pending the disposal of CRP in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI T.V.S. PRABHAKAR RAO
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.6473 of 2018
O R D ER:
The Present Civil Revision Petition is filed againstthe order dated 18.07.2018 passed in CMA.No.23 of 2010 by the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam in an appeal under section 16 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 confirming the decree and order passed in A.T.C.No.2 of 2009 dated 10.08.2010 passed by the Special Officer (Tenancy Cases-cum-ll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada) rejecting the claim of the petitioner fordeclaration as statutory tenant. 2. The Petitioner claims to be the agricultural tenantwith regard to the suit schedule property and it is thecaseofthe petitioner that he has taken the agriculture land onleasebasis from respondent No.1 for cultivation as a tenant morethan20 years ago on an oral agreement and that the agricultural tenancy commences from January and ends with Decemberof every calendar year, it was also pleaded that therewas no practice of passing of receipts as both parties are closely related. It was pleaded that respondent Nos.1 and 2.arethe sister and brother in law of the petitioner were arrayed as respondents. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the property. It was pleaded that respondents had sought for
ifc —
enhancement of rent in the year 1997 and in that context, differences arose between the parties. It was also pleaded that the respondent is trying to sell away the property and' forcibly evict the petitioner from the schedule land. Hence, ATC was filed for declaration that the petitioner is' the cultivatingtenant and for consequential permanent injunction.
3
- The trial Court after examining all the documents cameto the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establishthejural relationship of landlord and tenant and in view ofthefindingof due to lack of jural relationship, the trial Courtdidnotappraise on the other two issues which it had framed.
- The appellate Court on re-appreciation of the arguments and the evidence on record confirmed the order anddecreeof the trial Court. Hence, the present revision petition.
- Heard Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel forthe petitioner and Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, learned counselfor the respondents. 8. In the ground? of revision; no question of law nor perversity in the findings of the Courts below wasurged.The grounds urged in the revision reads as under;
4
evidence to establish his right as cultivating tenant.
5
1 1
the absence of specific plea with regard to perversity, this Court considering the scope of Article 227 of the Constitutionof India cannot venture to go into the findings of fact by re-appreciating the evidence, In the grounds urged, no question of law which is having a bearing on the outcomeof the case was urged. Apart from that, the Courts belowhave elaborately considered the evidence as well as thecontentions of the petitioner and had eventually denied the reliefthatwas sought.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/-B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
To,
sree
/ ..
HIGH COURT DATED:07/05/2024
ORDER
CRP.No.6473 of 2018
DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the lower courts' findings on the existence of landlord-tenant relationship under Article 227.
Whether there is perversity or lack of evidence in the denial of the petitioner's claim as a statutory tenant.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Kondeti Panduranga Rao
Smt. Sayana Swayamprabha Dev
Sayana Sambasiva Rao
Sayana Udaya Venkata Phani Kishore
Sayana Kiran
Sayan Harish
Nyathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
