Gamidi Basavaiah and another vs Lakkaraju Kamala Devi and others

These revisions are filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decrees and common judgment dated 5-8-1996 passed in ATA Nos.105 and 102 of 1991 respectively on the file of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Guntur.

Revision Petitioners are tenants, against whom the respondent-landlady filed a petition u/s 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, seeking their eviction from the petition schedule land and for redelivery of the said land to her. It is her case that she is the owner of the petition schedule lands and that one fate Trivikrama Rao, who is her husband''s brother, used to manage the said lands on her behalf. Late Trivikrama Rao let out the schedule lands to the petitioners-tenants, along with his lands at an annual rent of 65 bags of paddy. The total extent of land leased out to the revision petitioners is Ac.5.45 cents of wet land and Ac. 1.48 cents of dry land. Out of the said total extent, the petitioner has got Ac.2.62 cents of wet land and Ac. 1.42 cents of dry land, as shown in the petition schedule. Rest of the land belongs to late Trivikrama Rao. The revision petitioners cultivated the lands for the year 1971-72 and the maktha payable by them for that year is 38 bags of paddy (which is the share of the landlady). But, the revision petitioners failed to pay the said maktha. It is the case of the landlady that the tenants did not pay maktha to her even for the previous year also i.e., 1970-71. Trivikrama Rao died in the month of May, 1973. Thereupon, the landlady got issued a legal notice to the tenants calling upon them to pay the maktha for those two years. Reply notices were sent by them. Thereafter, the present petition for eviction was filed.

The 1st respondent filed his counter disputing the tenancy between himself and the landlady. According to him, they have taken the leasehold rights of the lands in question from late Trivikrama Rao on 14-5-1969 for a period of 10 years. Since then, they have been paying maktha regularly and obtaining receipts also. According to them, the annual rent is 40 bags of paddy. While so, they effected repairs to the entire extent of Ac.5.50 cents of land on the directions of late Trivikrama Rao by spending an amount of Rs.800/- and that late Trivikrama Rao also agreed to adjust the same in the maktha payable for the year 1971-72. Accordingly, the 1st respondent paid the balance amount, after deducting the amount spent towards repairs, to the advocate of the sons of late Trivikrama Rao. But, Trivikrama Rao refused to receive the balance amount and pass a receipt. It is, therefore, contended that they arc not in arrears of rent to the respondent-landlady.

The 2nd respondent filed a separate counter also disputing the ownership of the landlady. He also took the plea that he was not in arrears for any year prior to 1971-72. He also pleaded about his spending an amount of Rs.800/- along with Rl towards repairs of the land and about the assurance given by late Trivikrama Rao to adjust the said amount in the maktha payable for the year 1971-72 and contended that when they offered to pay the balance amount, late Trivikrama Rao refused to receive the same. It is, therefore, pleaded that they were not in arrears of maktha. Both the respondents, however offered to pay the balance of maktha if the Court directs so.

On the basis of the above pleadings, enquiry was conducted by the learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Munsif Magistrate, Tenali in ATC Nos.520 and 513 of 1981. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the primary authority found that the plea set up by the tenants about their spending of amount towards repairs could not be established by them. Consequently, it held that the tenants committed default in payment of rent for the year 1971-72 and accordingly ordered eviction of the tenants. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the tenants filed ATA Nos.105 and 102 of 1991 before the lower appellate Tribunal, which, in its well considered judgment, confirmed the findings recorded by the primary authority. Hence, these two revisions.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants is that the Courts below have erred in holding that the tenants committed default in payment of rent. It is further contended that the lease in question is a composite lease and the respondent-landlady cannot split up the said lease and file two separate petitions and that the Courts below have utterly failed to appreciate this factum. It is further contended that the respondent is not the owner of the land in question as the tenants have obtained the lease from late Trivikrama Rao and that there is no relationship between them and the respondent-landlady. In support of- his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions. Dr. Amar Prosad Gupta Vs. Arun Kumar Shaw, ; S. Sanyal Vs. Gian Chand, . It is lastly contended that unless and until the rent due as per law is determined, there is no question of default in payment of the same and that the Courts below without determining the actual rent due have proceeded to deal with the question of default in payment or rent, which, according to the learned Counsel, is impermissible under law.

But, in my considered opinion, this Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the merits or demerits of the case decided by the Courts below or the correctness or otherwise of the findings of fact recorded by the lower Courts. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is very very limited. Generally, it is limited to want of jurisdiction, errors of law, perverse findings, gross violation of natural justice etc. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others, , had explained the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227. It explained that -

"A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough; to attract the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited ''to see that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority,'' and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."

has been held by the Supreme Court, the power of the High Court under Article 227 is only to see whether an inferior Court or Tribunal functioned within the limits of its authority or not. It has no power to either correct any error which had been committed by it or to review or re-assess the evidence on record basing on which finding is given. Finally, the Supreme Court categorically held that even the errors of law cannot be corrected by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. When coming to the case on hand, the main contention of the learned Counsel is that both the Courts below have committed an illegality in not appreciating the plea raised by the tenants on the point of composite lease and that the findings of both the Courts below cannot, therefore, be sustained in law. But, as has been held by the Supreme Court, this Court has no power to correct even errors of law. Therefore, in my opinion, this Court cannot go into all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel in this case. Be that as it may, in this case, when the landlady sought eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent for the year 1971-72, the tenants curiously admitted the above factum but raised a plea that they did not pay the amount in view of the assurance given by late Trivikrama Rao that the amounts spent by them towards repair of the land in question would be adjusted in the rent payable for the year 1971-72. But, the Courts below recorded a categorical finding of fact that the tenants failed to establish the said plea. As a result, the Courts below held that the tenants committed default, In view of the finding of fact that the tenants committed default in payment of rentals, which alone is sufficient for the Courts below to order eviction of the tenants, question of going into the contentions like those which are raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not arise for this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. For the above reason, I am of the view that there are no merits in these two revisions.

In the result, the revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.