The tenant's rights under the A.P. Tenancy Act must be upheld, and any sale deed executed without offering the property to the tenant is voidable at the tenant's option.

ORDER :

(Nyapathy Vijay, J.)

The Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Judgment passed in A.T.A.No.2 of 2012, dated 10.03.2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, in reversing the order and decree, dated 16.07.2010 passed in A.T.C.No.2 of 2005, on the file of the Special Officer-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Razole, East Godavari District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in A.T.C.No.2 of 2005.

3. The scheduled of properties consists of two items of agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1-86 cents and Ac.1-54 cents. The Petitioner had filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2005, under Sections 10 and 15 read with Section 16 of A.P. (Andhra Area)Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking declaration as statutory tenant and for preferential right to purchase the scheduled property.

4. The Respondent No.1 was the landlord. The original owner by name Uppaganti Suranna had orally leased out the scheduled property to the father of the Petitioner. After the death of the original landlord, the father of the Petitioner continued the leasehold cultivation on same conditions. When the father of the Petitioner was in old age, the Petitioner and his brother by name Radha Krishna approached the Respondent No.1/landlord and asked him to lease the scheduled property and the same was accepted by the Respondent No.1. The father of the Petitioner died on 07.04.2002 and the brother of the Petitioner expressed his inability to do leasehold cultivation and thereby, the Petitioner became the sole cultivating tenant of the scheduled property.

5. It was pleaded that the Petitioner was regular in paying rents and there was no default. While so, for the year 2000-2001, the Petitioner tried to pay rentals through Demand Draft, but Respondent No.1 refused to receive the same and Respondent No.1 insisted for payment of rent in cash. Accordingly, the Petitioner paid the said amount for the following year also. On 10.07.2003, the Respondent No.1 got issued a legal notice making certain allegations against the Petitioner and a reply was issued thereto.

6. While so, on 09.04.2005, when the Petitioner was harvesting 2nd crop of the scheduled property with the help of his family members and coolies, all the Respondents accompanied by about 50 persons entered into the scheduled property with deadly weapons and shouted that they purchased the petition schedule property from the Respondent No.1 and that the Petitioner should give up his tenancy rights. Though the Petitioner informed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram and Mandal Revenue Officer, Razole, over phone and also gave a complaint to the Police, no action was taken as mediation was proposed on 10.04.2005. The Petitioner had realised that a sale deed dated 08.04.2005 was brought into existence to defeat the right of pre-emption as provided under Section 15 of the Act. Hence, the Petitioner filed A.T.C. for the above mentioned reliefs.

7. Though no relief was sought against Respondent Nos.5 to 10 in the A.T.C, they were added as formal parties as they were strong supporters of the landlord and were trying to infringe with the leasehold rights of the Petitioner.

8. The Respondent No.1/landlord filed counter denying the landlord and tenant relationship. The Respondent also pleaded that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the sale deed dated 08.04.2005 in favour of Respondent No.4 was true and valid and that the Respondent No.4 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property.

9. The Respondent No.4/purchaser filed a separate counter contending that she has been cultivating the scheduled property with the assistance of the Respondent No.5 from the date of sale of the scheduled property.

10. In the course of enquiry, PWs.1 to 7 were examined on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant and Exs.A1 to A.44 were marked. On behalf of the Respondent/landlord, R.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marke