( 1 ) ). THE question which arises for our consideration in this Civil Revision petition is whether voluntary surrender of the land under occupation of a tenant is binding upon the tenant or whether he could resile from the same.

( 2 ) ). The present Revision Petition is filed against the concurrent judgment of the learned District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru in A. T. A. No. 112 of 1985 dated 4-10-1991, which was decided against the tenant and in favour of the landlord.

( 3 ) ). By an order dated 28-11-1985 in A. T. C. No. 13 of 1980, passed by the Special officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Narsapur, the tenant s appeal under section 16 (1) of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short the Act ) for declaration of his tenancy rights and for permanent injunction against the respondents, was dismissed.

( 4 ) ). The short facts are that the petitioner-tenant was a cultivating tenant in respect of Ac. 3-75 cents of the land covered by R. S. Nos. 458/2 and 457 situated in Kopparru village belonging to the 1st and 2nd respondents. Originally the petitioner s father was cultivating the land and after his death the petitioner-tenant continued to cultivate the land on yearly maktha of 30 bags of paddy for sarva and at the rate of 4 bags of paddy per acre for dalva. The property belonged to one late Janapamula Rattamma, the mother of the 1st respondent. Respondents 1 to 3 were indulging in acts of waste in respect of the petition schedule lands and they were threatening the petitioner that they would not allow him to take the crop and on 1-10-1980, the respondents committed trespass into the petitioner s lands. When petitioner obstructed them, they quarrelled with him and threatened that they would take away the crop itself. Out of fear the petitioner kept quiet and hence the petition for declaration of the petitioner s right and injunction.

( 5 ) ). In the counter filed by the respondents, it was not disputed that the petitioner s father used to cultivate the schedule lands as a tenant and after his death, the petitioner and his brother-Krishna Murthy used to cultivate the land in equal shares. The petitioner s brother died about two years back and after his death, his son-in-law Mopidevi Nageswara Rao of Kopparru village used to cultivate half the share as tenant. Krishna Murthy had no male issues. The petitioner and his brother used to pay 8 bags of paddy for sarva per acre and 4 bags of paddy for dalva per acre. They are alleged to have committed default in payment of rents. The disputes between the land-lords and the tenant were settled with the help of mediators. According to the settlement, the petitioner and M. Nageswara Rao were supposed to vacate the schedule land and deliver possession of the same to the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents took possession of the same in May, 1980 in the presence of the mediators and the respondents in turn gave up the arrears of maktha due by the tenant.

( 6 ) ). Thereafter, the respondents raised seed beds in the schedule lands during 1980-81 with the help of her husband by spending huge amounts. The crop in the land was ripe for cutting. However, owing to flood, the land was completely submerged and the standing crop could not be cut and removed.

( 7 ) ). In this background of facts the lower appellate Court raised two points for determination whether the surrender pleaded by the respondents is true and valid and whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Act 39 of 1974 which came into force on 1-7-1980.

( 8 ) ). While appreciating the oral evidence, the lower appellate Court observed that it could not be said that R. Ws. 2,3 and 4 were set-up by the respondents. The 1st respondent s case that he was cultivating his father-in-law s share and was paying maktha and that he fell in arrears of maktha stood corroborated from the oral testimony of R. Ws. l and 2 and, therefore, the petitioner s case that he was in possession of the entire land cou