SHAIK JUNNA Vs. ABDUL SALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision Petitioner laid a tenancy case before the Tenancy Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repelled under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act ('Tenancy Act', for short) to declare him as a cultivating tenant and to declare that the Petitioner has a preemptive right to purchase the schedule property. He also sought for a consequential perpetual injunction. The tenancy Tribunal dismissed the tenancy case laid by the tenant. The tenant preferred an appeal before the tenancy appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur. Through the impugned order, the appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant came forward with this revision.

(2.) The revision Petitioner, who laid the tenancy case, claims to be the tenant. The parties in the revision are the same parties in the tenancy case and tenancy appeal. The first Respondent is the landlord. The second Respondent is the decree holder in respect of the schedule property against the first Respondent for the specific performance of the agreement of sale of the schedule property. The schedule property is Ac.1.00 cents of agricultural land in D. No. 146, Kanagala Village, Bhattiprolu Mandal in a total extent of Ac.9.86 cents.

(3.) The Petitioner claimed that he has been the tenant of the schedule property under the first Respondent since 1986 through an oral tenancy. He further contended that the first Respondent set up the second Respondent with a suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 226 of 1988 and allowed the second Respondent to obtain a decree against the first Respondent for specific performance. His claim is that the first Respondent ought to have offered the schedule land to the Petitioner for sale and that the first Respondent was entitled to sell the same to third parties in the event the Petitioner was not ready to purchase the same. Section 15 of the Act ordains that when a landlord intends to sell the land, he shall first offer the same to the cultivating tenant. The tenant, who laid the revision, inter alia contends that the first Respondent landlord violates the right of preemption conferred upon the Petitioner/tenant by Section 15 of the Tenancy Act. It is further contended that even otherwise, the tenancy continues even if the landlord changes and that the tenancy of the Petitioner would not stand determine with the change of ownership of the property.