- (1.)This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by Vepa Venkateswarlu, the petitioner in A.T.C.No. 3 of 1986 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal/District Munsif, Narsipatnam, aggrieved by the reversing order made in A.T.A.No. 11 of 1991 by the Appellate Authority/District Judge, Visakhapatnam.
(2.)The original revision petitioner died pending the civil revision petition and the legal representatives have been brought on record. Vepa Venkateswarlu, the petitioner in A.T.C.No.3 of 1986 on the file of the Tenancy Tribunal/District Munsif, Narsipatnam had filed the said ATC against the said respondents for payment of rents for the years 1983,1984 and 1985 onwards and also prayed for delivery of possession of the schedule lands after evicting the respondents/ tenants on the ground that they had committed default in payment of rents. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the Tenancy Tribunal/District Munsif, Narsipatnam had recorded the evidence of P.W-1 and R.W-1 and also had marked documents Exs.A-1 to A-17 and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondents/tenants had committed default and hence the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for by an order dated 24-10-1991. The tenants aggrieved of the same had preferred A.T. A.No.l1 of 1991 on the file of the appellate authority/District Judge, Visakhapatnam and during pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant died and appellants 8 and 9 were added as legal representatives of the 1st appellant as per orders dated 24-03-1994 in I.A.No.2119 of 1993. The respondents/tenants filed I.A.No.776of 1995 praying the Court to permit them to file additional counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents in A.T.C.No. 3 of 1986 wherein a specific stand was taken that the land in question formed part of Kotauratla estate and after abolition of the said estate, these parties who are the cultivating tenants have no permanent occupancy rights and are entitled to ryotwari pattas and the rights of the land holders became extinguished under the Madras Estates Abolition Act and they had also taken a stand that suppressing the said fact Vepa Venkateswarlu filed A.T.C.No.3 of 1986 under Section 13 of the A.P.(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1980(?) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Several other factual details had also been narrated. As can be seen from the material available on record before the appellate authority/District Judge, Visakhapatnam, Exs. A-18 to A-21 and Exs.B-1 to B-41 were marked. After elaborate discussion, the appellate authority/District Judge, Visakhapatnam had arrived at a conclusion that the application under Section 13 of the Act is not maintainable since the respondents/tenants were no longer tenants on the date of filing of the said ATC under the Act and hence they are not liable to be evicted.
(3.)Sri Subrahmanyam Narasu, learned counsel representing the appellants had submitted that the appellate authority in fact had not decided the question of default which had been decided by the primary tribunal but had reversed the order of the primary tribunal on different grounds. The learned counsel also pointed out that when additional new pleas had been taken at the appellate stage instead of affording proper opportunity, the appellate authority/District Judge, Visakhapatnam had proceeded to decide with the matter after marking the documents. The learned counsel also pointed out that in the light of the facts and circumstances it is clear that the case set up by the respondents in I.A.No.776 of 1995 is totally inconsistent with their stand taken in their original counter in A.T.C.No.3 of 1986. The learned counsel also had made elaborate submissions relating to the nature of the land and also applicability or otherwise of the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act and also the findings relating to doctrine of res judicata recorded by the appellate authority/ District Judge, Visakhapatnam.