( 1 ) THE unsuccessful tenants have filed this Civil Revision Petition against judgment passed by the Tenancy Appellate tribunal (Principal District Judge) Guntur, in ATA No. 38/91 dated 12-1-2000, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the Special Officer under the tenancy Act-cum-Principal District munsif, Tenali passed in ATC No. 21/84 dated 26-4-1993 which was originally filed by four persons under Section 16 of the a. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act to declare them as cultivating tenants in respect of the petition schedule lands ad measuring ac. 21. 00.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant namely Bodaati Valaiah died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 5 to 8 therein.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in ATC No. 21/84.

( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the petition schedule lands belong to Valeswaraswamy Temple and they were allotted to its archaka. The 1st respondent gave petition schedule lands on lease to the petitioners eight years prior to the filing of the petition under an oral lease. The petitioners have been cultivating the same as lessees and the rent agreed to be paid by them to the 1st respondent is nine bags of paddy per acre totalling 189 bags for the entire extent of Ac. 21. 00. Respondents 2 to 10 informed the petitioner that they were 2003 (3) ALD June 15" having interest in the petition schedule property and they wanted the petitioner to pay the rents to them. It is the case of the petitioners that they have no concern with respondents 2 to 10 as the petition schedule land was leased out to them by the 1st respondent alone. Due to the claim and counter claim of the respondents, the petitioners apprehend that they might be dispossessed from the petition schedule land, they filed ATC to declare them as the cultivating tenants.

( 5 ) THE 1st respondent filed counter before the Special Officer stating that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and the petition schedule land belongs to Valeswaraswamy Temple devasthanam. Respondents are the archakas of the said temple and the 1st respondent is the chief archaka. Some of the respondents entrusted the management of the schedule lands to the 1 st respondent. Out of Ac. 21. 00 of the total land Ac. 15. 00 were earmarked for archakatwam services and the income of the remaining Ac. 6. 00 was earmarked to meet Paditharam expenses. As per the understanding between the respondents, the 1st respondent has to get the land cultivated and pay the amounts to the respondents for services rendered by him also towards Paditharam expenses. The 1st respondent is in actual possession of the schedule lands and he never leased out the same to the petitioners at any time. The 1st respondent has got the schedule land cultivated personally all these years. The petitioners filed this petition at the instigation of respondents 2 to 10 who are enemically disposed against the 1st respondent. Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) THE 9th respondent filed counter stating that there was compromise between the temple and the respondents according to the which the land was given to archakas for rendering services in the temple and for paditharam expenses in the temple and the respondents shall not lease out the schedule property to the third parties and there is specific stipulation in the agreement that the schedule property should be cultivated by the arachakas personally alone and the 1st respondent alone was cultivating the schedule lands personally and after deducting the agricultural expenses he was given the produce to the other respondents. But after some years the 1st respondent was showing less produce and enormous agricultural expenses and that he was secreting the income from the schedule property. The 1 st respondent did not divide the properties among the respondents 2 to 10, and therefore, they filed OS No. 101/83 on the