Kapu Nagendra Kumar Vs Koduru Venkata Krishna Rao @ Venkata Krishna

KODURU SAILENDRA, S/O. VENKATA KRISHNA RAO @ VENKATA KRISHNA HINDU, PROPERTIES, MUNDINEPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL (RESPONDENT NO.2 IS ADDED AS PER ORDERS ON I.A. NO. 355 OF 2012, DATED 04.09.2012)

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toto allow the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner by setting aside the Order, Dt. 25.04.2017 in A.T.A No. 27 of 2014 on the file of. the Prinicipal District Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, and pass

¶18

2

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 4699 OF 2017

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in ATC.NO. 01 of 2011, dated 14.10.2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur-cum-Special Officer Under Andhra Pradesh(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 pending disposal of CRP and to pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.K SAI MOHAN RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.T V V KOTESWARA RAO

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3577 of 2017

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 25.04.2017 in A.T.A No.27 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents.

¶32

The case of the petitioner herein is that the Tenancy Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground the that petitioner was not able to produce any documents to prove the claim of tenancy against the subject schedule property. He further submits that since it is an oral tenancy, the petitioner was unable to furnish any written documents to prove the existence of tenancy between the land-lord and the petitioner. Even as per the judgment rendered by the lower appellate court in A.T.A.No.27 of 2014, it is specifically admitted that the petitioner has been cultivating the subject schedule property. Once RW-1 admitted that the petitioner was cultivating the subject schedule property, the finding that the petitioner is not a tenant, and that no tenancy is exists, is liable to be interfered with.

¶33

4

¶34

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed on record, the fact remains that the petitioner did not produce any valid documents to prove the tenancy which is in existence between the petitioner and the respondents/ land lords. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner since the RW-1 admitted that the petitioner has been cultivating the subject schedule property and is also holding revenue receipts, by which it cannot be held that the petitioner is not a tenant is not valid and sustainable, for the reason, cultivation of land with the permission of the land lords on his behalf is different from the right of tenancy. Under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, once a person is declared as a tenant, he accrues a substantial rights against the subject schedule property. In general, to carry agricultural operations many persons were engaged for cultivation of land on their behalf of the land lords, such a permitted cultivation cannot be construed as tenancy between the land lord and the cultivator. Therefore, in the instant case, even though RW1 admitted regarding cultivation of the land by the petitioner, it is only a cultivation on behalf of the land lords in the absence of any written agreement/ written documents to have a intention of tenancy. The said admission cannot be construed as admission of tenancy. Therefore, there are no merits in the present revision petition and is liable to dismissed.

¶35