- (1.)Boggavarapu Subba Rao, the deceased 1st petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition along with certain other petitioners filed A.T.C.No.7/88 on the file of Special Officer/District Munsif, Pithapuram for determination of tenancy on the ground of default and also on the ground of sub-letting and the learned Special Officer/District Munsif, Pithapuram, after recording the evidence of Boggavarapu Madhavakrishna, 3rd petitioner in the A.T.C. as PW-1 and Nallam Srirama Krishna Murthy, 1st respondent in the said A.T.C. as RW-1 and Telagamsetti Venkata Rao, 3rd respondent in the said A.T.C. as RW-2 and after marking Exs.A-1 to A-17 and B-1 to B-11 ultimately had arrived at a conclusion that there is no default in payment of maktha, but however recorded finding that the 3rd respondent in the said A.T.C. was inducted by respondents 1 and 2 as the sub-tenant in respect of the petition schedule land and hence the petitioners are entitled to the relief of eviction in view of the provisions of Section 13(c) of the A.P. Andhra Area (Tenancy Act), 1956, in short hereinafter referred to as "Act". Aggrieved by the same, the 3rd respondent filed A.T.A.No.23 of 1995 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada - the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, and the petitioners in A.T.C./landlords filed Cross Objections so far as the finding of default is concerned. The Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that respondents 1 and 2 are the original tenants of the petitioners/landlords in respect of the petition schedule land and they were alone paying makta as claimed by the petitioners/landlords, and the 3rd respondent is a close relation of respondents 1 and 2 and though the 3rd respondent claimed to be the cultivating tenant having been directly inducted into possession by the petitioners/landlords, the same was negatived and the findings of the Primary Tenancy Tribunal/Special Officer, had been confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No.4476 and 4494 of 1998 and C.R.P.S.R.No.81264/98 were filed and the Revisional Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India had set aside the order of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal made in A.T.A.No.23/95, dated 6-10-1998 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in the said order. However, C.R.P.SR.No.81264/98 was dismissed, without costs. On remand, the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada/Tenancy Appellate Tribunal after marking additional documents, Exs.A-48 to A-53 and Exs.B-12 to B-15, ultimately had allowed the A.T.A. declaring the 3rd respondent as the cultivating tenant in relation to the petition schedule land by order dated 12-4-2000. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st petitioner/landlord in the A.T.C. had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
(2.)During the pendency of the Civil Revision Petition, the said Boggavarapu Subba Rao died and Boggavarapu Gokula Krishna, 2nd petitioner is brought on record as legal representative of the deceased petitioner by order dated 14-2-2003 made in C.M.P.No.1728/2003. That is how the present petitioner is prosecuting the litigation.
(3.)Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioner made elaborate submissions on the aspect of the ground of sub-tenancy and had contended that no doubt the matter was remitted by this Court for the purpose of deciding whether the 3rd respondent is the cultivating tenant or not in the light of Exs.B-3 to B-8, but however, the learned Counsel would maintain that Exs.B-3 to B-8 do not reflect the fact that the 3rd respondent is a cultivating tenant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the relevant entries and explained that at the best, it can be said that the 3rd respondent was in possession of the subject land and nothing more and by that it cannot be said that he is the cultivating tenant. The learned Counsel also would maintain that as per the Adangal, the 3rd respondent is shown as the encroacher and the person who raised the crops and at no point of time the 3rd respondent was shown as the cultivating tenant and this aspect was not appreciated by the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal in proper perspective. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions in relation to the additional evidence - Exs.A-48 to A-53 and B-12 to B-15 entertained by the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal and also had pointed out the findings recorded in this regard and had contended that in such an event, in the interest of justice, the only possible course which could have been adopted by the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal should have been to remit the matter to the Primary Tenancy Tribunal to afford opportunity to both the parties and in stead declaring the 3rd respondent as the cultivating tenant, definitely is bad in law. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions in relation to Exs.A-7 and A-9 and the absence of reply to these letters which would definitely suggest that respondents 1 and 2 alone are the cultivating tenants and not the 3rd respondent and for reasons best known a stand had been taken that the 3rd respondent is the cultivating tenant. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the acceptance of rent during the pendency of the eviction proceedings and had submitted that the findings recorded by the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal relating to declaration that the 3rd respondent is the cultivating tenant are totally unsustainable and the reason that the lease was not shown by the landlord in the declaration may not be very relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel further submitted that inasmuch as there is total non-consideration of Exs.A-7 and A-9, in particular, it is a fit matter where a remand order may have to be made. The Counsel also had placed reliance on ESTRALLA RUBBER Vs. DASS ESTATE (P) LTD. 1 and also SUGARBAI M.SIDDIQ Vs. RAMESH S.HANKARE 2 to explain the scope, ambit and interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also relied upon certain other decisions too, to substantiate his contentions.