DONTIREDDY VENKATA REDDY Vs. BHIMAVARAPU BHUSHIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case has been referred to us by a Bench of this Court as in its opinion the question raised in Writ Appeal No. 98 of 1967 and L. P. A. No. 116 of 1967 involve intricate questions relating to the s open of jurisdiction of Tahsildar under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act. It was also pointed that there are certain observations in the judgment in Gorla Buchaiah v. Mukala Swami Naidu, (1962), 1 Andh WR 10 which require close scrutiny in the light of the Supreme Courts decision placed before them.

(2.) The facts relating to Writ Appeal No. 98 of 1967 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 116 of 1967 may briefly be stated. One Dontireddy Venkata Reddy filed an application A. T. P. 38 of 1968 before the Deputy Tahsildar, Vijayawada u/s. 13 (a) and (c) of the Andhra Tenancy At XVIII of 1966 (hereinafter called the Act) for termination of tenancy against his cultivating tenant Bushireddy and others. The allegation was that the petitioners family owned about 30 acres of lonka land described in detail in the schedule in the village Chagantipadu which is situated about two miles from the schedule lands. In June 1957 Bushireddy, the 1st respondent, in the petition took the land on lease for 1957 on a rent of Rs. 50.00 per acre and took a written lease from the petitioner. It was also agreed that the 1st respondent should not sub-let the land to anybody and pay half the amount in the month of August 1957. The 1st respondent undertook to vacate the land without any notice by 1-7-1958. the 1st respondent has not paid the balance of rent of Rs. 900.00 and has not vacated the land as stipulated. When the petitioner got a registered notice issued to him the 1st respondent got a reply notice issued with false and untenable allegations. The 1st respondent had sub-let the land to respondents 2 to 6 and thus contravened the terms of the lease. It was, therefore, prayed that the Court may be pleased to pass a order evicting all the respondents from the schedule land and awarding costs of the petition to the petitioner.

(3.) That 1st respondent denied taking 30 acres of land on lease and in Para 3 of the counter-affidavit filed by him he stated that the petitioner did not own 30 acres of lonka land in Chagantipadu, but on the other hand the petitioner owned only 20 acres of land in two plots of 10 acres each at two different places. The petitioner had leaned out only one plot of 10 acres of land and the rent therefore has been duly paid. The 1st respondent was not inducted into possession as subleases. Respondents 2 to 6 also took the same stand that only 10 acres of land was leased out to respondent No. 1 and they were in possession of 20 acres of land from a long time. The land of the respondents was to the north of the petitioners 10 acres plot. They had no connection whatsoever either with the petitioner or the 1st respondent and therefore could not be deprived of their possession.