IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SR4I JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4355 of 2008 Between:
Jakka Nancharamma and another ... PETITIONERS AND Chavali Valeswara Rao and others ... RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This revision is preferred against the order in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.52 of 2003 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Krishna at Machilipatnam. By the impugned order, the lower appellate Court disposed of the C.M.A.No.52 of 2003 and C.M.A.No.56 of 2003 arising out of A.T.C.Nos.22 of 1998 and 23 of 1998 respectively. Since the impugned order is a common order in two appeals and this revision having been preferred only against one of the appeals i.e., against C.M.A.No.52 of 2003; even on the principles of resjudicata the common order has attained finality so far as C.M.A.No.56 of 2003 is concerned and on that ground alone this revision is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to state if there is any other revision so far as C.M.A.No.56 of 2003 is concerned.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that tenancy Act itself has no application as fish tank exists on the land. I am unable to appreciate this as the petitioner who has taken the agricultural land on lease is trying to take advantage of his own deeds and submits that because he converted the agricultural lands into fish tanks he is outside the preview of the tenancy Act. The said contention is liable to be rejected.
3. Even otherwise on merits, respondents’ application for eviction being A.T.C.No.22 of 1998 was allowed by the Special Officer on the ground that there is a clear violation of Section 13 (d) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. Both the Courts below have concurrently found on facts that the petitioners had put the agricultural land for different use namely by creating fish tanks and was earning income by the fish tanks. The construction of fish tank in the land leased out for agricultural purpose, therefore, amounted to violation of terms of the tenancy warranting eviction of the petitioners. The said concurrent findings of both the Courts below, on facts, therefore, is not open for interference in this revision. So far as A.T.C.No.23 of 1998 is concerned, the same was filed by the respondents for enhancement of rents and the appellate Court had granted partial relief to the respondents by reducing the rents from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. In any case that order arising out of A.T.C.No.23 of 1998 as modified in C.M.A.No.56 of 2003 having become final, no interference in that respect is called for.
4. The Civil Revision Petition is without merits and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The petitioners are granted two months time to vacate the leased land and deliver the vacant possession to the respondents/landlords.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 01, 2010.
PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4355 of 2008 July 01, 2010