Dismissed

Merneedi Veerraju v. Agraharapu Venkata Ramanayya

Telangana HC20 Jul 2011CRP/646/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an eviction order passed against a tenant for default in payment of maktha. The Court held that the tenant failed to raise the plea of permanent tenancy rights at any stage in the lower courts.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed and the interim stay granted earlier is vacated.

Merneedi Veerraju Vs Agraharapu Venkata Ramanayya — Telangana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT::

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.646 OF 2004

¶5

Between: Merneedi Veerraju

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

Agraharapu Venkata Ramanayya and two others

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.646 OF 2004

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.11.2003 in A.T.A.No.50 of 1998, on the file of the III-Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed, confirming the order dated 23.11.1998 in A.T.C.No.22 of 1986, on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), was allowed, directing the petitioner herein to vacate the schedule land.

¶12

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶13

3. According to the respondents herein, they are the owners of the schedule land of two acres and the petitioner herein was a tenant on yearly maktha of 30 bags of paddy payable on 15^th January of every year and he committed default in payment of maktha for the years 1980-81 to 1985-86. The respondents/landlord got issued notice dated 16.08.1985 to the petitioner/tenant calling upon him to pay the arrears of maktha and also to vacate the land for which the petitioner herein gave a reply.

¶14

4. The petitioner herein filed a counter contending that the extent of the schedule land is only Ac.1-80 cents and the annual maktha is also 13 bags of paddy but not 30 bags and that for the year 1985-86 the landlord received the maktha in the last week of January, 1986 and that he is in arrears of maktha and the application is filed only with a mala fide intention to sell away the land.

¶15

5. During enquiry before the Special Officer, the first respondent herein was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A-1 copy of the judgment in O.S.No.297 of 1986 was marked. The petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1 and no document was marked on his side.

¶16

6. The learned Special Officer held that the petitioner herein was in default of payment of maktha at the rate of 13 bags of paddy per year for the period from 1980-81 to 1985-86 and accordingly ordered eviction. The petitioner herein filed an appeal in A.T.A.No.50 of 1998 and by the impugned order the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned

¶17

Special Officer. Aggrieved the same, the tenant preferred the present appeal.

¶18

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner herein is having permanent tenancy rights and, therefore, he is not liable to be evicted under Section 13 of the Act.

¶19

In support of the said contention, the petitioner seeks to rely on a decision of this Court in G.VEERASWAMY ETC. V. UPPARDASTA PAPANNA SASTRUL U^[1] wherein it was held as follows:

¶20

“Ryots possessing permanent tenancy rights are not persons holding lands under such tenancy agreements and are therefore not ‘cultivating tenants’ within the meaning of Act. Landlords to be landlords within the meaning of the Act must possess the right to determine a tenancy on the expiration of the period of lease. A landlord who has granted a permanent lease does not possess such a right even if he has reserved to himself the right to determine the tenancy for default of payment of rent. Therefore the Andhra Tenancy Act does not apply to cases where tenants possess permanent tenancy rights even though the landlord possesses a limited right to evict.”

¶21

8. In their petition, the respondents herein have categorically averred that the land was leased out to the petitioner herein on a yearly maktha of 30 bags of paddy. It is no where pleaded in the petition that the petitioner herein was having permanent tenancy rights. In the copy of the format enclosed to the petition, which is filed along with the material papers, against column No.4 as to period of tenancy and date of commencement, a noting is made that ‘tenancy in perpetuity, but the respondent committed default and he is not entitled to the benefit of the Tenancy

¶22

Act’ and the same is struck off with pencil. The original record in A.T.C is sent for and received. No such format is found with the original application filed by the respondents herein in A.T.C.No.22 of 1986. In the counter filed by the petitioner herein, no such plea was raised to the effect that the petitioner is having permanent tenancy rights and, therefore, he is not liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. In the counter, he merely disputed the extent of land contending that it is only Ac.180 cents but not two acres and also disputed the quantum of maktha contending that it is only 13 bags, but not 30 bags. He further denied that he committed default in payment of maktha. The maintainability of the application is never questioned by the petitioner herein before the Special Officer.

¶23

9. It is not disputed that the respondents herein filed O.S.No.297 of 1986 for recovery of arrears of maktha for the period 1983-84 to 1985-86 in a sum of Rs.9,000/- and the petitioner herein contested the suit by filing a written statement and after full-fledged trial, the suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the petitioner in A.S.No.48 of 1996 was dismissed on 29.09.1997. A copy of the judgment in O.S.No.297 of 1986 is marked as Ex.A-1. The petitioner herein,

¶24

as R.W.1, has also admitted the same in his evidence. In the

¶25

cross-examination, he admitted that the landlords used to issue receipts for receipt of maktha whenever he paid. He categorically admitted that there is no proof in writing to show that he paid the annual maktha at the rate of 13 bags of paddy to the petitioners for the period 1980-81 to

¶26

1985-86. In the evidence also, the petitioner herein has nowhere stated that he is a permanent tenant and, therefore, the petition for eviction is not maintainable. It is not even suggested to P.W.1 in the cross-examination that the petitioner was having permanent rights of tenancy in the suit land. Based on the admissions of petitioner herein (R.W.1) in the evidence and in view of the judgment Ex.A-1 in O.S.No.297 of 1986 whereunder the decree was passed regarding the arrears of maktha, the Courts below have, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, ordered eviction, holding that the petitioner herein committed default in payment of maktha for the years 1980-81 to 1985-86. The record does not disclose that the petitioner herein claimed to be having permanent tenancy rights in the schedule land at any stage during the pendency of the proceedings before the Courts below. Going by the noting found in the copy of the format attached to the copy of the petition, filed as part of the material papers in the civil revision petition and which noting is also found struck off, it cannot be held that the respondents herein admitted that the petitioner is having permanent tenancy rights. The original record of the Courts below does not disclose that the petitioner herein raised the said plea at any time nor is it suggested to the respondents herein at any stage.

¶27

10. Under those circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner herein that the petitioner is having permanent tenancy rights and, therefore, he is not liable for eviction under the provisions of the Act, cannot be countenanced. The impugned order of eviction passed by the learned Special officer on proper

¶28

appreciation of the evidence available on record, which is confirmed by the appellate authority on re-appraisal of the evidence, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶30

20^th July, 2011 Lrkm

¶31

[1] 1969(II) AWR 359

Merneedi Veerraju v. Agraharapu Venkata Ramanayya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Merneedi Veerraju v. Agraharapu Venkata Ramanayya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Veera Padmaja Oil and Flore Mills, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Fakruddin,S/o. Shaik Yakoob, Vs Mrs. Bina Agarwal

Telukutla Chinnapareddy, Vs Nagepogu Benjimen

Mohd. Arshad Ali Khan Vs Smt. Khatiya Begum

Betappa Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Tirukkovilluru Peethambaram Vs Nagala Appa Rao