Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ms.Cherukuri Siva Samrajyam vs Ms. Borra Aruna on 10 March, 2023
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.290 of 2022
Ms.Cherukuri Siva Samrajyam, W/o late
Pardhasaradhi, aged about 80 years, Door
No.59A-8/8-4/1, Plot No.9, Maruti
Cooperative Colony, Gurunanak Colony, Back
side of Saibaba Temple, Vijayawada 522008
and another.
... Petitioners.
Versus
Ms.Borra Aruna, W/o Samba Siva Rao, aged
about 43 years, resident of
Nagabhushanapuram village, Polukonda
Panchayat, Nandiwada Mandal, Krishna
District, Gudivada.
... Respondent.
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned
senior counsel representing
Sri D.Satya Siva Darshan
Counsel for respondent : Sri S.Krishna Murthy
ORDER
Respondents in ATC filed the above revision against the docket order dated 19.01.2022 in I.A.No.79 of 2022 in A.T.C.No.1 of 2022 on the file of Special Officer, A.P. (A.A.) Agricultural Tenancy Tribunal cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada.
Page 2 of 8
SRSJ CRP No.290 of 2022
2. Respondent herein being the petitioner filed A.T.C.No.1 of 2022 under Sections 3, 5, 6 to 10 of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short "Tenancy Act") read with Rules 3, 11(2) and 19 of the Tenancy Rules, 1980 (for short "Tenancy Rules") to declare the petitioner as statutory tenant cultivating the fish tank of the petition schedule property and for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property.
3. Along with said A.T.C., he also filed I.A.No.79 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that respondents are the absolute owners of the fish tank. Petitioner approached the respondents in the year 2020 for cultivation of aquaculture in the fish tank of respondents of an extent of Ac.21.30 cents. Respondents agreed for giving leasehold rights commencing from 01.10.2020 and the previous tenant vacated the schedule Page 3 of 8 SRSJ CRP No.290 of 2022 property on 30.09.2020. The lease amount per acre was agreed at Rs.72,000/- and the entire amount was paid in advance. In view of widespread slump in the business, petitioner sustained loss. Leasehold rights of maktha came down to half of the agreed rent during the period 2020-2021. In order to cover up the losses during the period 2020-2021, petitioner approached the respondents to extend the lease for a period of five years in continuation from 01.10.2021 to 30.06.2026. On 15.12.2021, a fresh lease deed was executed for five years fixing the lease amount at Rs.35,000/- per acre for the years 2021-2022 and Rs.45,000/- per acre for the next four years. The fish tank was dug about two decades ago and hence, the bunds on four sides were damaged. Petitioner got the same repaired as also godown by incurring huge expenditure. While the matter stood thus, respondents demanded increase of Maktha from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre per annum from 2021-2022 instead of Rs.35,000/- as per lease deed. Respondents threatened and also projected third party as proposed tenant and hence filed the above A.T.C. and I.A.No.79 of 2022 for grant of ad-interim injunction.
Page 4 of 8
SRSJ CRP No.290 of 2022
5. By docket order dated 19.01.2022, lower tribunal granted ad-interim injunction subject to compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of CPC and adjourned the matter to 21.02.2022. Against the said docket order, the present revision is filed.
6. This Court by order dated 17.02.2022 suspended the docket order passed by the lower tribunal for a period of eight weeks and the same is being extended from time to time.
7. Heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned senior representing Sri D.Satya Siva Darshan, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri S.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for respondent.
8. Learned senior counsel would submit that the tank leased out is fish tank and hence, ATC itself is not maintainable. He would also submit that since the ATC itself is not maintainable, grant of ad-interim injunction does not arise. In support of said contention, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of the composite High Court in Machineni Venkata Ratnam Vs. Page 5 of 8 SRSJ CRP No.290 of 2022 District Judge, Krishna-cum-Appellate Tenancy Tribunal and Ors.1.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent would submit that revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in view of appeal provided under Section 16 of the Tenancy Act. He would also submit that petitioners before filing this revision, filed I.A.No.110 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the ATC on the ground of maintainability, wherein counter was filed and the same is pending consideration before the lower tribunal. He relied upon the judgment of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Tirumala Raju Ravi Varma and Ors. vs. Mortha Siva Kumar and Ors.2.
10. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the revision filed against grant of ad- interim injunction under the provisions of the Tenancy Act is maintainable, in view of appeal provided under Section 16 (2) of the Tenancy Act?1
1999 (6) ALD 169 2 2019 (4) ALD 266 Page 6 of 8 SRSJ CRP No.290 of 2022
11. It is apt to extract Section 16 of the Tenancy Act as hereunder:
16. Adjudication of disputes and appeal (1) Any dispute arising under this Act, between a landlord and a cultivating tenant in relation to a matter not otherwise decided by the Special Officer under the provisions of this Act, shall, on application by the landlord or the cultivating tenant, as the case may be, be decided by the Special Officer after making an enquiry in the manner prescribed:
(2) Against any order passed by the Special Officer under this Act an appeal shall lie to the District Judge having jurisdiction, within thirty days of the passing of the order; and the decision of the District Judge on such appeal shall be final.
12. In the case on hand, lower tribunal granted ad-interim injunction. Petitioners in fact, filed I.A.No.110 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the ATC on the ground of jurisdiction. Against the grant of ad-interim injunction, petitioners can as well file counter before the tribunal, so that the tribunal will adjudicate the application on merits. Though the learned senior counsel would submit that revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not persuaded with the said submission. Page 7 of 8
SRSJ CRP No.290 of 2022
13. In Tirumala Raju Ravi Varma and Ors. Vs. Mortha Siva Kumar and Ors.3, learned single Judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while placing reliance upon the judgment in A.C.M.L. Prasad and Ors. Vs. Shaik Madar [2004 (5) ALD 390], came to the conclusion that revision before the High Court against the grant of ad-interim injunction is not maintainable. The observation of learned single Judge in A.C.M.L. Prasad's case is as follows:
"5. Therefore, by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 16, against any order passed by the Special Officer, an appeal lies to the District Court having jurisdiction.
6. In the above circumstances, the revisions under Section 115 of CPC or Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable and the petitioner has to seek the appeal remedy as provided under Section 16(2) of the Act. Accordingly the revisions are dismissed. However, this order, does not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Appellate Court, if he so chooses. No costs."
14. In view of above expressions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against grant of ad-interim injunction is not maintainable.
3 2019 (4) ALD 266 Page 8 of 8 SRSJ CRP No.290 of 2022
15. In view of plea raised regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction, the lower tribunal shall decide I.A.No.110 of 2022 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Lower tribunal, basing on the conclusion in I.A.No.110 of 2022 shall also decide I.A.No.79 of 2022 on merits within a period of three weeks thereafter. Both parties shall cooperate with the lower tribunal for disposal of both the I.As. The interim suspension granted by this court will continue for a period of 8 weeks or till lower tribunal decides I.A.No.79 of 2022 on merits whichever is earlier.
16. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 10th March, 2023 PVD