JUDGMENT :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby he allowed the petition filed by the respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside the order passed by Appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter described as "the Tribunal") declaring the appellant as a statutory tenant under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act").

3. Bandaru Perumallu was owner of the land situated at Venkatapuram village. The appellant is said to have been cultivating that land. After the death of Bandaru Perumallu his daughters (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) are said to have given on lease another parcel of land situated at Timmaraogudem to the appellant some time in August, 1985 for the purpose of cultivation. During the subsistence of lease, respondent No. 1 entered into agreement with respondent No. 3 for sale of her half share and respondent No. 2 executed sale deed dated 21.8.1993 in favour of respondent No. 4.

4. The appellant filed a petition under Section 16 of the Act for grant of declaration that he is a statutory tenant of the schedule land and respondents are not entitled to interfere with his possession.

5. Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem (for short "the Special Officer), after analysing the pleadings and evidence of the parties, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant.

6. By an order dated 25.10.2004, the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant, reversed the finding and conclusion recorded by the Special Court and held that in view of the judgments - Exhibits A-22 and 25, the respondent is entitled to a declaration that he has acquired the status of a statutory tenant. Paragraphs 18 to 21 of the Tribunal's order which contain detailed reasons are extracted below:

"(18) Even if the land is sold, the rights of the tenancy cannot be wiped out. Tenant will continue even if the ownership is changed. Exs. A-13 to A-16 are said to be the maktha receipts issued by the husband of the 2nd respondent examined as R.W.1. But, R.W. 1 has denied the same. Of course the said documents are not sent to hand-writing expert for comparison. Hence, the court has to look into other circumstances about the existence of the tenancy. The petitioner has filed Exs. A-17 to A-19. Ex. A-17 has clearly mentioned about the payment of eight bags of the value and demand for remaining balance. Similarly in Ex. B-18, it is also mentioned about the same. When the petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the property and if he is not attending, what is the need for him to pay bags of paddy or its value thereon. If he is no way connected with the land, what is the need for him to pay. Similarly, it is not their case that the respondent is looking after the properties on their behalf on account of their relationship. In Ex.A- 19, it is clearly mentioned about the raising of bunds and about the bunds on the said land about the promise to cultivate the said land by the husband of respondent No.2.

(19) The learned Special Officer has failed to look into the letters in detail. He has simply denied to receive the same on the ground that there is no point of tenancy. He has not gone into the contents of the said letters and he has not made any effort to interpret with the same.

(20) He has also failed to disbelieve the judgment in O.S. No. 461/94 on the ground that there is no issue with regard to the tenancy. It is very clearly mentioned that the petitioner is not possession and enjoyment the property as a tenant and denied the injunction sought for by the respondents herein. Ex.A-25 is also a suit filed by the Respondents herein. O.S. No. 265/96 and the said suit was also dismissed by holding that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property.

(21) The learned Special Officer has relied upon the documents filed