Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 78
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T.C.D. SEKHAR, J.
Kondagandla Tayaramma & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Poda Ananthamma & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 3364 of 2015
Decided On : 07-03-2025
For the Petitioner: T.V.S. Kumar.
For the Respondent: Madhava Rao Nalluri.
Landlords can reclaim tenancy property for personal cultivation despite prior non-cultivation, provided they demonstrate bona fide intent under the A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act.
Headnote:
(A) A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 12 and 13 - Eviction of tenants - Landlords sought eviction on grounds of personal cultivation; previous orders affirmed landlords' need, but Appellate Court found lack of bona fide intent - Court noted possession transferred to landlords - Appellate Court's findings deemed perverse and unsustainable. (Paras 2, 5, 8, 13, 15)
(B) Tenancy Rights - The requirement for landlords to prove bona fide need for eviction is essential, and previous cultivation history does not negate this need. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Landlords filed for eviction to cultivate land personally; tenants claimed prior tenancy rights and lack of necessity from landlords. Appellate Court set aside primary authority's order favoring landlords, questioning bona fide intent.
Findings of Court:
The primary authority found landlords' need for cultivation valid; Appellate Court's dismissal was overturned, affirming landlords' possession of property.
Issues: Whether landlords demonstrated bona fide requirement for eviction; whether Appellate Court's findings were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that prior non-cultivation does not preclude a landlord's right to reclaim land for personal cultivation under the Act, reaffirming the necessity for landlords to maintain their rights despite historical tenancy claims.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is Allowed.
ORDER :
The present revision petition is filed against order dated 26.06.2015, passed in ATA No.1 of 2012, on the file of Appellate Authority under A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act-cum-Principal District Judge, Prakasam, at Ongole.
2. The petitioners are the owners of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.80 cents in Sy.No.210 of Tatacharyulu Agraharam Village, Ammanabrolu Mandal, Prakasam District. Initially, the petitioners/landlords filed petition under Section 12 of the A.P(A.A) Tenancy Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) vide ATC.No.21 of 2009, on the file of the Special Tenancy Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, seeking direction against respondents/tenants to vacate from the petition schedule property and to deliver possession to them. The said ATC was allowed by order dated 22.06.2012. Assailing the correctness of the said order, the respondents herein preferred Appeal under Section 16 of the Act vide ATA No.1 of 2012, on the file of the Appellate Authority under A.P.(A.A) Tenancy Act-cum-Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Upon hearing the parties, the Principal District Judge, set aside the order of the primary authority and allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/tenants by order dated 26.06.2015. The said order is assailed in the instant Civil Revision Petition.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the respondents.
4. It is the case of the petitioners/landlords that they have filed petition under Section 12 of the Act, seeking to evict the respondents/tenants on the ground of personal cultivation. It is their further case that the 1st and 3rd petitioners are residing at Tatacharyulu Agraharam Village and the 2nd petitioner is residing in Ongole. As the petitioners/landlords want to cultivate the schedule property on their own, they have filed the petition under Section 12 of the Act, as the 3rd petitioner is a physically disabled person, having no other source of income. It is also contended by the petitioners/landlords that they have issued statutory notice dated 30.01.2009, to the respondents/tenants, to which the respondents/tenants sent a reply on 07.02.2009. Since the respondents/tenants did not vacate the subject lands, they filed eviction petition.
5. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents/tenants that previously, they filed ATC No.18 of 2000, to declare them as cultivating tenants of the petition schedule property, which was allowed by the primary authority and subsequently, the said order was confirmed in ATA No.5 of 2003 on an appeal filed by the petitioners herein. It is further contended that the petitioners/landlords are the permanent residents of Ongole and have no necessity to cultivate the petition schedule property for their livelihood, as they are gainfully employed. It is further contended that the 3rd petitioner is unmarried and physically disabled, she cannot personally cultivate the petition schedule land. It is further contended that neither the petitioners/landlords nor their parents have ever cultivated the lands during their life time. Therefore, the petition filed by them is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the petition, inasmuch as it is filed with an ulterior motive and without any bonafide requirement on their part. It is further alleged that the petitioners’ family have sold the agricultural lands in the said village except the petition schedule property. It is the further case of the respondents/tenants that the petitioners/landlords and their mother tried to sell away the petition schedule property to third parties by ignoring the tenancy rights of the respondents, despite offering to purchase the petition schedule property. Therefore, the respondents/tenants filed ATC.No.18 of 2000, as aforementioned, to declare them as tenants. In view of the same, prayed to dismiss the petition filed against them.
6. The primary authority after framing the points for consideration held that the maktha paid by the respondents/tenants a
