KRAPA RANGAYYA Vs. RAMINENI TATAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions are filed by Krapa Rangayya under Article 227 of the Constitution as against the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, in Andhra Tenancy Appeals Nos. 17 to 19 of 1958 directing the Thasildar to determine the fair rent payable by him under the provisions of section 6 of the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'. All the appeals and the revisions arise out of A.T.P. No. 40 of 1957 filed by two archakas of the Chennakesavaswami Temple at Chinna Ogirala against the petitioner herein and one Tatayya. The two archakas had granted a lease of 11 acres and 20 cents of land held by them under archakatvam service for a period of 5 years on 5th March, 1953, stipulating a rent of 115 bags per year. In Fasli 1363, Tatayya orally sub-leased 9 acres and 60 cents in favour of Rangayya, the petitioner herein. On 23rd December, 1953, he executed a registered document evidencing the sub-lease for a further period of four years on the same terms. Tatayya is in actual possession and cultivation of 1 acre and 60 cents while Rangayya, the petitioner herein is in actual possession and cultivation of 9 acres and 60 cents. On the application filed by the two archakas for determination of fair rent under section 6 of the Act impleading Tatayya and Rangayya as the respondents, the Tahsildar dismissed the application holding that the archakas were not landlords and that Rangayya, the petitioner herein, was not a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Act. In regard to a sum of Rs. 2,760 deposited by Rangayya as the rent due by him to Tatayya, the archakas were held not entitled to recover the amount. The archakas thereupon preferred A.T.As. 18 and 19 of 1958. The ist respondent Tatayya preferred A.T.A. No. 17 of 1958. The Revenue Divisional Officer took the view that the archakas are landlords within the meaning of the Act and that the petitioner herein, though a sub-lessee, is a cultivating tenant under the Act. In the rusult, he reversed the appeals and A.T.P. No. 40 of 1957 was remanded for determination of the fair rent on the merits. As against the orders passed in A.T. As. 17 to 19 of 1958 the three civil revision petitions are filed before this Court.

(2.) The main question that was argued by Sri P. A. Chowdary, the learned Advocate, for the petitioner, was that the sub-lessee is not a cultivating tenant falling within the definition inasmuch as he did not enter into a tenancy agreement with the archakas. Cultivating tenant is defined as follows :-

(3.) The petitioner herein is certainly a person who is cultivating 9 acres and 60 cents by his own labour. He fulfils the first part of the definition. According to Sri Chowdary, as the petitioner has not executed a tenancy agreement in favour of the archakas, he would not be a cultivating tenant under the archakas. Sri K. B. Krishnamurthi, the learned Advocate for the lessee Tatayya, contended that under the definition it is sufficient if a tenancy agreement is entered into with any person in lawful occupation of the land. I am unable to accept this contention. Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 refer to the relationship between the cultivating tenant and the landlord. In order that the landlord may be entitled to take proceedings under section 6, the cultivating tenant must have executed a tenancy agreement with him.