KANNAJI RAMULU Vs. SUVARNESWARASWAMY VARI TEMPLE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of these six writ petitions, three viz. W.P.Nos.4031, 4032 and 4033 of 1979 are preferred by three different tenants, against the orders of eviction passed against them, while the other writ petitions, ie., W.P Nos.7769, 7770 of 1979 and 443/1S80, are preferred bv the landlord, against the same tenants, against an order granting remission in the rent. The relevant Fasli year is 1386, corresponding to 1976-77. Though the tenants are different, the relevant facts are identical in all the cases. The landlord is the temple, called "Sree Suvarneswaraswami Temple". The tenants have been the lessees of the lands concerned herein, for the last 25 years. During the Fasli year 1 386 the tenants filed applications under section 8 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, for remission of rent on the ground that, because of the successive cyclones, the crops have been substantially damaged. The landlord opposed the request for remission and contended that the tenants had cut the crop even before the cyclone and that, they had not suffered any damage on account of the cyclone. Another objection, though not raised in the counter but put forward at the time of arguments before the Tahsildar, was that the petition for remission was not fiied within the time prescribed by Section 8, nor was a copy thereof served upon the landlord and that therefore the same was not maintainable in law. The Tahsildar held an enquiry and, believing the evidence adduced by the tenants held by his order dt.18-11- 77 that they are entitled to remission. So far as the legal objection raised by the landlord is concerned, the Tahsildar held that the same having not been raised In the counter, must be deemed to have been waived. He also held that, because of the successive cyclones, the tenants were justified in trying to save the cut crop from being washed away and in thrashing it immediately and, in these circumstances, it was not possible for them to file an application within the time prescribed by Section 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer agreed with this reasoning and dismissed the landlord's appeals. Hence the three writ petitions (W.P. Nos.7769, 7770 of 1979 and 443/ 1980) by the landlord.

(2.) In his order dated 18-11-1977, the Tahsildar, while determining the rent payable by the tenants, did not fix the time within which the tenants were to pay the same to the landlord. On 9-1-1978 the landlord filed eviction petitions against the three tenants on the ground that they have not paid the rent as fixed by the Tahsildar and, therefore, have rendered themselves liable for eviction under Section 13 of the Act. The Tahsildar dismissed the eviction petitions, upholding the tenants' plea that they had deposited the rent in kind with one Saripalli Simhadri Raju & Company on 27-12-1977 and had requested the Executive Officer to receive the cash from the said firm, that, on the refusal of the Executive Officer, they deposited the equivalent cash in the Bank on 16-1-1978 and that, therefore, the tenant cannot be said to be guilty of default in payment of rent. On appeal, however, the Revenue Divisional Officer came to a contrary conclusion. The Revenue Divisional Officer was under the impression that the Tahsildar, in his order dated 18-11-1977. had fixed a period of one month for the deposit of rent determined by him and, on that basis held that the tenants are guilty of default in as much as they have not deposited or paid the rent within that time. He also observed that, instead of adopting a circuitous way of depositing the rent with another person and subsequently in the Bank, the tenants could have ad. opted the simple method of sending the money by Money order directly to the Executive Officer. Accordingly, he passed orders of eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenants have filed the three writ petitions, referred to above.

(3.) I will first take up the writ petitions filed by the tenants. It is evident from a reading of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer that his entire judgment is coloured by the assumption-which is admittedly not correct-that the Tahsildar had, in his order dated 18-11-1977, fixed a period of one month for paying the Makhta (rent). He held that since the tenants have failed to pay the rent within the stipulated time, they are liable for eviction. But, since the Tahsildar had not fixed any such time in his order, it would follow that the judgment of the R.D 0., is vitiated by the said erroneous assumption. Mr.M. Adinarayana Raju, the learned Counsel for the landlord, while conceding that the Revenue Divisional Officer was wrong in assuming that the Tahsildar had fixed one month's time for payment of the rent, argued, with reference to a decision of this Court in C. Swamy V. R. Suryanarayana (1) 1970-11 An.W.R. 173 that, even though the Tahsildar had not prescribed any time for the payment of rent, it must be deemed, in law, that the time for payment in such cases is one month from the date of the order. He argued that, inasmuch as the tenants have failed to pay the rent within the said period of one month, the R DO's order ought not to be interfered with. He also submitted that the story put forward by the tenants, viz., that they deposited the rent in kind with Saripaili Simhadri Raju & Co., on 27-12-1977, is false and has rightly been disbelieved by the Revenue Divisional Officer and that, the deposit of the amount in Bank on 16-1- 1978 cannot save the tenants from the legal consequence arising from their default to deposit the rent within one month of the Tahsildar's order.