This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order dated 31.1.2011 in AT A No.10 of 2008 on the file of the Court of• the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

2. The petitioner filed a petition under Sections 1 O( 1), 15 and 16(1) of the Artdhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (the Tenancy Act, for brevity) for declaration that he is a statutory protected tenant and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his possession. He also sought permission to deposit the value of four kata bags• of Paddy per year. He alleged that the first respondent is the owner of land comprised in S.No.121 admeasuring Ac.0.71 cents (out of Ac.1.71 cents); he is a tenant since 14.7.2003; and that he became owner after death of Vasamsetti Sathiraju from whom he took the property on lease. He alleged that when he offered maktha to the first respondent he refused to accept the same and that the first respondent and others are trying to sell away the property. The petitioner also claimed preemptive right under Section 15 of the Tenancy Act.

3. The petitioner filed IA No.211 of 2007 for ad interim injunction with similar allegation. In the said application, respondents 1 and 4 remained ex parte. Second respondent filed counter. He stated that he purchased the property from third respondent under registered sale deed dated 13.8.2004 where he is raising sugar cane crop. He denied that the first respondent is the owner of the petition schedule property. He also alleged that the petitioner and first respondent in collusion filed A.T.C. setting up a false lease.

4. The Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dismissed IA No.211 of 2007 on 13.2.2008 observing that petitioner failed to produce any evidence that he took the petition schedule property on lease from the father of the first respondent and, therefore, he is not entitled for injunction. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred ATA No.10 of 2008 under Section 16(2) of the Tenancy Act. The same was dismissed on 31.1.2011 by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

5. This Court ordered notice on 27.9.2011. After receiving notice, the second respondent alone entered appearance and other respondents remained ex parte.

6. When the matter was heard subsequently this Court entertained a doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge to entertain an appeal under Section 16(2) of the Tenancy Act. The Counsel were asked to address the Court on this aspect. Today, both the Counsel made their submissions.

7. The Tenancy Act is a special enactment inter alia to provide for the payment of fair rent by cultivating tenants and remission of rent in case whether there is total or partial failure of crops. due to calamities and to protect the cultivating tenants. It is a special enactment, which provides for the rights and duties of the landlords and tenants and also remedies for redressal of grievances. Section 2(j) of the Tenancy Act defines "Special Officer" as to mean any judicial officer not below the rank of a District Munsif appointed by the Government in consultation with the High Court, to perform the functions of a Special Officer. Sections 10 and 13 provide remedies to the tenant and landlord. Under Section 16(1) of the Tenancy Act, any dispute arising under this Act, between a landlord and a cultivating tenant shall be decided by the Special Officer only. Under Section 16(2), an appeal is provided by the Special Officer to the District Judge having jurisdiction, within 30 days from the date of passing of the order and the order in appeal shall be final.

8. The Tenancy Act does not define "District Judge". Under Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), "District" means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction called a "District Court" and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction o