1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging order dated 19.07.2005 in A.T.A No.109 of 2001 and in cross objections of Appellate Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) i.e. Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru reversing the order dated 30.09.2001 of the Tenancy Tribunal- cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur in A.T.C No.84 of 1995.

2. A.T.C No.84 of 1995 was filed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 under Section 16 of the Act to declare that he is a tenant of the A.T.C petition schedule property and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5, their men and supporters from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property as a cultivating tenant and for costs.

3. The1st respondent contended that the property belongs to the petitioner; that she leased out the property to the 1st respondent under oral lease for a period of 4 years in the month of May, 1993 for raising Virginia tobacco therein on a yearly rent of Rs.2,000/- per acre; the lease is an oral lease and it was granted in the presence of Vempati Suryarao and Andru Sattiraju, elders; he raised Virginia tobacco during the year 1993-1994 and enjoyed the same; he paid a sum of Rs.6,200/- as rental to the petitioner and obtained Ex.A.1 receipt dated 10.04.1994; he cultivated the land during the year 1994-1995 also with tobacco and paid the rent of Rs.6,200/-to the petitioner vide Ex.A.2 receipt dated 31.05.1995; he is a protected cultivating tenant under the Act in the petition schedule property and he is not in arrears of rent; due to some disputes between the petitioner and her sisters on the one hand and himself on the other hand, with regard to the properties of the 1st respondent’s adoptive father, the petitioner became inimical to him; the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 were proclaiming that they would trespass into the petition schedule property and dispossess the 1st respondent and spoil the tobacco crop raised by him; he is in actual physical possession of the petition schedule property; his name is also mutated in the revenue record as enjoyer of the property; the Mandal Revenue Officer also issued a certificate Ex.A.3 dated 01.09.1995 through the Village Administrative Officer, Duddukuru; and therefore he should be declared as the cultivating tenant in respect of the petition schedule property and the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 should be restrained from interfering with his physical possession and enjoyment.

4. The petitioner filed a counter denying the averments made by the 1st respondent in the A.T.C. Her counter was adopted by respondents 2 to 5. They contended that the 1st respondent is closely related to the petitioner; she had never granted any lease to 1st respondent; the receipts Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 are not true and are forged; 1st respondent was the foster son of Vempati Papa Rao and he is also the eldest sister’s son of petitioner; 1st respondent lived with the father of the petitioner as foster son in that house; the father-in-law of the 1st respondent is an experienced litigant and had influenced the Village Administrative Officer and also Mandal Revenue Officer and got false entries made in the adangals and also obtained a certificate to the effect that 1st respondent is in possession of the A.T.C petition schedule properties; the 1st respondent filed caveat petition wherein he described himself as owner of Item No.15 of schedule property; therefore, the A.T.C is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Before the Tenancy Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined PWs. 1 to 6 and marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 and on behalf of petitioner she got examined as RW-1 and marked Ex.B-1 which is copy of the served caveat petition.

6. The Tenancy Tribunal by order dated 30.09.2001 dismissed the A.T.C hold