ORDER
1. This is a civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment dated 10-3-2000 in ATA No. 2 of 1989 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order passed by the Principle District Munsif-cum-Tenancy Tribunal, Madanapalle on 18-7-1989 in ATC No. 2 of 1980. The petitioner herein is the tenant. The matter arises under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (for short ‘the Act’).
2. The respondents filed ATC No. 2 of 1980 under Sections 10(3), 13 and 16(i) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule property and for delivery of the same. The Tribunal allowed the ATC No. 2 of 1980 against which the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in ATA No. 2 of 1989. The learned appellate Judge allowed the said appeal on merits. The same was set aside by this Court in \VP No. 4332 of 1991 remitting the matter for fresh consider by the appellate Tribunal. That is how ATA No. 2 of 1989 was taken up for fresh hearing by the learned appellate Judge.
3. The Eviction petition was mainly filed on the ground that on 14-2-1969 late Ramakrishna Rao and the petitioner herein had entered into an agreement and that the petitioner agreed to take the petition schedule lands on lease for six years. The land was required to be made fit for cultivation by the petitioner. It was further agreed that for
the first three years there should not be any rent charged for the land, but for the subsequent three years, the petitioner should pay Rs. 820/- per annum to late Ramakrishna Rao. Possession was accordingly delivered to the petitioner under the said agreement. It is the case of the respondents-landlords that the petitioner herein failed to discharge the obligations as agreed under the agreement dated 14-2-1969. The petitioner failed to pay the rents to late Ramakrishna Rao for the year 1974-75 and set up an oral agreement of sale in his favour by late Ramakrishna Rao and thereby committed breach of covenant with a view to continue to be in illegal occupation of the land even after the expiry of the period of lease.
4. After filing of ATC No. 2 of 1980, a person called Chittoor Satyanarayana Rao filed OS No. 138 of 1983 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madnapalle for partition of his alleged share in the schedule properties against the respondents. In the said suit, the petition schedule properties were shown as item 13 to 16 of the schedule. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein in connivance with said Satyanarayana Rao brought into existence a false agreement of sale dated 10-2-1984 and subsequently filed IA No. 364 of 1984 and got himself impleaded in OS No. 138 of 1983.
5. In short, the eviction petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rents and willfuly denied the title of the landlords.
6. The appellate Tribunal after an elaborate consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the petitioner herein had committed default in payment of rents as alleged by the respondents-land lords. The appellate Judge also found that the petitioner herein without any justifiable cause denied the tile of the respondents-landlords. The
learned appellate Judge confirmed the findings of the learned Special Officer. Thus there is a concurrent finding of fact by the learned Special Officer as well as by the learned appellate Judge that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rents for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The learned appellate Judge also found that the plea taken by the petitioner that he continued to be in possession in pursuance of the oral sale in between himself and late Ramakrishna Rao is false. The said plea would amount to setting an adverse title against the respondents-landlords. It is required to notice that the petitioner has gone to the extent of setting up of a third party by name Satyanarayana Rao as adopted son of late Ramarkishna Rao. Not only that, the petitioner purchased the petition schedule property under the registered sale deed from the said Satyanarayana Rao. These factors were taken into consideration by the learned appellate Judge in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner herein had set up his own title and willfully denied the title of the respondents-landlords.
7. The findings, in my considered opinion, are based upon the material available on record. Both the Special Officer as well as the learned appellate Judge found that the petitioner herein committed default in payment of rents and also wilfully denied the title of the respondents-landlords.
8. In this civil revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to challenge the findings so recorded by the learned Special Officer as well as the learned appellate Judge. In my considered opinion, such a course is not permissible in law. This Court does not exercise any appellate jurisdiction over the decision of the Tribunal. The findings, by no stretch of imagination, could be characterised as a perversed one. The conduct of the petitioner
is apparent from the record. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has set up an adverse claim against the respondents-landlords without any justification. The conduct would amount to denying the title of the respondents-landlords. The finding in this regard does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Likewise, the finding that the petitioner committed default in payment of rents to the respondents-landlords also does not suffer from any legal infirmity. There is abundance of evidence available on record to justify the findings recorded by the Tribunals below holding that the petitioner had set up adverse title against the respondents-landlords.
9. Suffice it to hold that the decision of the learned appellate Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever and the learned appellate Judge rightly confirmed the findings of the Special Officer. Such concurrent findings of fact are no interfered with by this Court.
10. In the circumstances, the civil Revision petition fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.