ROUTHU JATLAYYA Vs. SAGI SEETHARAMACHANDRA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals which arise out of O.S. Nos. 196 and 198 of 1956 raise common question of law. Both the suits were brought by Sagi Seetharamachandra Raju for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent after formal quit notices to the defendant in each suit. The lands in question situate in Pandrangi were pre-settlement washermen service inams. As they were alienated to strangers, the Government resumed them in the year 1933 and granted the same to the plaintiff (respondent herein) and nine others, of course, not as inams but with full ryotwari assessment imposed thereon. Eventually, these lands exclusively fell to the share of the plaintiff as a result of the decree in O.S. No. 227 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Yellamanchili. Then the plaintiff leased them out to each of the defendants-appellants on an yearly cost of Rs. 10 and Rs. 20 respectively on condition that the tenancy would terminate at the end of the period. The cist, however, was payable in two instalments on 15th January and 15th March, the arrears carrying interest at 6 per cent, per annum. Both the defendants paid the cist together with the penalty upto the end of the Telugu year 1949-50. Thereafter they defaulted.

(2.) Notices were given to them on 27th December, 1952, for payment of the arrears and also to quit the land by the end of the Telugu year. Both the defendants, in response, disputed the right of the plaintiff to demand eviction as they had acquired occupancy rights in the lands. Before he brought the suit, plaintiff gave a further notice to each of the defendants on 30th December, 1955, by way of abundant caution.

(3.) By the time the defendants filed their written statement, the Andhra Cultivating Tenants Protection Ordinance, 1956, promulgated on 10th July, 1956, had come in to force. The defendants, who were within the definition of cultivating tenants as in the said Ordinance, resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that they were cultivating the lands even from the time of their ancestors for over 60 or 70 years, that they had therefore acquired occupancy rights and that at any rate, they were not liable to eviction during the continuance of the Andhra Cultivating Tenants Protection Ordinance, 1956, except under the provisions of the said Ordinance and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction. They further contended that there was not proper and valid notice to quit served on them. The trial Court reached the conclusion that the defendants had no occupancy right in the lands and that the notices to quit served on them were proper and valid. But it refused to pass an order of eviction as in its opinion, the defendants were protected by the Andhra Cultivating Tenants Protection Ordinance, 1956 and the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) as well and therefore the civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant such relief. But the learned District Judge, on appeal, granted the relief for eviction on the ground that the defendants cannot claim protection under the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) as they were not cultivating tenants within the meaning of the Act since their tenancy was not subsisting on the date of the promulgation of the Ordinance. The matter came up in appeal before our brother, Seshachelapati, J., who having regard to the importance of the question involved, referred the matter to this Bench.