The civil revision petition is filed as againot an order made in A.T.A.No.9 of 1996 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 13.4.1999.

2. Sri S. Agasthya Sarma, learned counsel representing revision petitioners had taken this court through the findings recorded by the Special Officer-cum-Principal District Munsif, Kakinada, in ATC.No.30 of 1988 and also the findings recorded by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, the appellate authority, in A.TANo.9 of 1996 and would maintain that having disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2, recording such findings confirming tenancy rights on the respondents cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also incidentally referred to the statutory presumption and relied on Section 6 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, and further would maintain that to reverse such presumption, no acceptable evidence as such had been placed before the Court and in the light of the same, the orders made by both the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel placed before this Court additional grounds raised pointing out certain subsequent events and also would maintain that since this memorandum of additional grounds had been duly served on Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, the learned counsel representing the respondents the specific grounds raised relating to the continuous default committed by the alleged tenants during the pendency of the litigation also can be taken note of and in view of the same instead of confirming the order which may amount to multiplying litigations, it would be just and proper to make an order of remand for further adjudication of the question in controversy to the effect that in the light of the continuous default committed by the alleged tenants in payment of rents whether such parties would be entitled to the reliefs which had been granted by both the Primary Tribunal and the Appellate Authority. The counsel specifically pointed out to the relevant portions of the additional grounds, which had been submitted to this Court.

3. On the contrary, Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, the learned counsel representing respondents would maintain that concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Primary Authority and also the Appellate Authority as well under the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, and such findings normally not to be disturbed in a civil revision petition. The learned counsel also would maintain that the present revision petitioners also filed a suit O.S.No.555 of 1988 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kakinada, on the ground that these tenants, in whose favour the tenancy rights had been declared, are only trespassers, but however, for the reasons best known the said suit was withdrawn. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel would point out that it may be that the additional grounds had been served on him as counsel representing respondents, but however, proper procedure praying leave of the Court before relying upon such additional grounds, in fact, had not been prayed for. Further, the learned counsel would point out that even otherwise the remedy, if any, available to the petitioners under the provisions of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, would be to maintain an independent application praying for eviction on the ground of default, if any, and when the tenants approached the Tenancy Tribunal for declaration of certain tenancy rights, in such a proceeding the said question cannot be gone into and no relief in favour of the landlords on the ground of default can be granted in such a proceeding initiated by the tenants. The learn ad counsel also pointed out to Section 13 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, in this regard.

4. Heard the counsel on record, perused the reasons recorded by the Primary Tribunal and also the reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority.

5. In the light of the submissions made by t