PANGALOOR RAMAIAH Vs. BASABOINA NARASIMHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition raises an interesting question regarding the right of a landholder to apply to the Tahsildar for ejecting a tenant who has been in default of payment of rent.

(2.) The few facts leading to the filing of this Revision Petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner is admittedly the landholder of S. Nos. 615 and 616 of the extent of Ac. 16.11 guntas situated in Kodad village, Huzurnagar taluk, and the respondent is the tenant thereof. Alleging that the tenant defaulted to pay rents for faslis 1354, 1355 and 1356, the petitioner filed an application on 2nd August, 1956, before the Tahsildar, Huzurnagar, praying for orders of ejectment of the tenant (respondent herein). The Tahsildar rejected the contention of the tenant that six months' notice is necessary as provided in the Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950) on the ground that this is a case where the tenant has been in default for three faslis. The Tahsildar ordered ejectment of the tenant from the lands. He also directed that the amount of rents due should be paid to the landholder. It may, however, be pointed out that, according to the statement of the tenant, the arrears due as rents have been deposited along with the written statement. On appeal by the tenant, the Collector disagreed with the Tahsildar and held that for want of a notice by the petitioner giving six months' time, as required under the Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 19, the petition for ejectment filed before the Tahsildar is incompetent. He held the view that there was no termination of tenancy; and therefore dismissed the application of the petitioner for ejectment. While thus setting aside the order of the Tahsildar, he however directed that the tenant should pay in full the rentals up-to-date within a period of one month from the date of that order.

(3.) In this Court, Mr. Sadguru Prasad for the petitioner contended that the Proviso to section 28 places the case of a tenant who has defaulted for three years and more on a different footing, inasmuch as the order that could be passed by the Tahsildar at his discretion is denied to him by reason of the continued default to pay the rent. He further contended that when the advantage arising under the Proviso to section 28 is not available to such a tenant, that tenant cannot insist upon six months' notice from the landholder before he is ejected. The argument is that, since the case of the tenant who defaults continually is on a different footing, it is not incumbent upon the landholder to give him any notice before the termination of the tenancy. Secondly, it is contended that since the petition for ejectment has been filed by the landholder because the default has been committed by the tenant in respect of arrears of fasli 1354 also, it is not obligatory on the part of the landholder in any case to give notice of six months as required under the Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 19 which has been inserted by Act III of 1954 and has come into force only on 4th February, 1954. In support of this contention, he pointed out that the last date for payment of the arrears of fasli 1354 was 5th January, 1954 and the tenant could avail time till 20th January, 1954 as he is given 15 days for payment of the arrears and that beyond these concessions, the tenant is not entitled to any other in so far as the arrears of fasli 1354 is concerned. To meet this point so raised by the learned counsel, it is necessary to set out the provisions of section 19 so far as material. It runs :