CHITTOORY SWAMY Vs. RAVULA SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition gives rise to a short question of law relating to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the Act").

(2.) The respondents 1 and 2 are the tenants of the petitioner-landlord inrespect of about 22 acres of wet land. The agreed rent for the lands in question is 190 bags of paddy, half bag of green gram and two cart-loads of hay. For the year 1967-68, an application under Section 8 of the Act for remission of rent on the ground that there was failure of crop due to lack of rains. was filed by the tenants before the Tahsildar , Pithapuram. The application was opposed by the petitioner-landlord contending inter alia that there was no widespread calamity or drought and that the crop was good in about 16 acres and in about 4 acres, crop was not good on account of the neglect of the tenants and the reaming Ac. 1-50. cents was always beedu. At the request of the landlord,. one Sri. M. Subrahmanyam was appointed as Commissioner on 4/12/1967 by the Tahsildar to assess the exact yield of the crop after harvesting the same. The Commissioner, who had the paddy crop harvested, submitted his report to the effect that the gross yield of paddy was 170 bags and 66 kgs. A memo stating that he has no objection to the Commissioners report as to the true yield from the Schedule lands was filed by the landlord. As disclosed from the counter filed by the landlord, the normal yield of paddy on the land in question was 300 bags. The Tahsildar, on a consideration of the material before him, granted remission of rent by 82 bags of paddy out of the agreed rent of 190 bags. The appeal preferred by the landlord to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada under Section 16 (2) of the Act was without success. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Sri Poorniah, for the petitioner, contended that there was neither widespread calamity nor any evidence or material in support of the conclusion of the tribunals to grant remission under Section 8 of the Act. Sri Suryanarayana Murthy for the respondents contended country.