MOHD MUNEER MOHAMMAD HAYAT Vs. YADAV NARAYAN ADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord of a land bearing Survey No. 21 and situated at village Vithalpur, in Kannad Taluka of Aurangabad District. One Yadav Narayan Adkar who was originally respondent in this petition (who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondent) was the tenant of the said land. From the facts which have been mentioned in the judgments of the Courts below and which have been with some indignation underlined by Mr. Hussain appearing in support of the petition, it appears that the respondent was indeed a defaulter in the payment of rent and that the petitioner had to offer take proceedings to recover the arrears of rent.

(2.) The respondent did not pay the rent for the years 1957 and 1958-59 and the petitioner had to file an application for recovering the same which culminated in the order dated 30th June, 1960 of the Tahsildar. There was a default again for the subsequent year for which again the petitioner had to file an application leading to the order of the Tahsildar of 24th October, 1960. There is some dispute between the Advocates appearing before me as to whether payments in fact were made in satisfaction of those two years. But since an answer either way to that question will not materially effect the ultimate decision in this petition, it is not necessary to discuss that question. Thereafter the respondent again fell in arrears of rent for the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. An application was made under section 32(2) read with section 38 and section 19 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) for possession of the land on the found that the respondent had committed default in the payment of three years.

(3.) Before I proceed to narrate the progress of these proceedings, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act. Section 19(2) enables the landlord to terminate a tenancy on the ground that the tenant has filed to pay in any year, within fifteen days from the day fixed under the Land Revenue Act for the payment of the last year. The application for possession of the land had to be made under section 32. The provisions which invest the landlord with a right to obtain possession are contained in section 28 of the Tenancy Act. That section provides that where a tenancy of any land is terminated for non-payment of rent and the landlord files any proceeding to evict the tenant, the Tahsildar shall call upon the tenant to tender the rent in arrears along with the costs of the proceedings within ninety days from the date of the order. The section further provides that if the tenant compiles with such order, the Tahsildar shall, in lieu of making an order of ejectment direct that the tenancy has not been terminated. If, however, the termination of the tenancy is sought for non-payment of rent for any three years and the landlord has given intimation to the tenant of the default within a period of six months of each default, then the discretion given to the Tahsildar of calling upon the tenant to deposit the rent within 90 days in taken away. In other words, in the case of default of three years, where the landholder has given intimation of each default with in six months of each default, then the order for eviction must inevitably follow. It is these provisions under which the possession of the suit land in the present case has been sought.