MAJJI PARASURAMULU Vs. SIMHADRI SURYANARAYANANAMURTHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional officer, Kovvur, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar Polavaram, under the Andhra Tenancy Act XVIII of 1956 (herein after called the Act) for default in payment of rent within the period prescribed by Section 13 of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner alleged that he and his brother the 2nd respondent obtained a lease of two acres of land in Gutala village and executed a vasabadi muchilika on 18-1-1956 for a period of one year on a rental of Rs. 250/- and that they continued to be in possession till the date of eviction under the provision of the Act and since then has been paying rent regularly every year, which rent for the current year is payable in March 1961. It is averred that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the 1st respondent inasmuch as the 1st respondent had categorically stated that the petitioner had vacated the land at the end of the statutory period of 3 years under Section 10 of the Act and that later the petitioner had got back into possession because of an amendment to the Act extending the period from three to four years. In the circumstances, the petitioner contends that he was a trespasser and consequently the Andhra Tenancy Act would not apply and the proper remedy for the 1st respondent is to evict him by way of a suit. Secondly, he contends that even if the Tahsildar had jurisdiction to entertain the 1st respondent's application, the landlord having accepted the rent after the period of grace provided in the Act, he was estopped from contending that the rent was not paid in time. In view of both these contentions, he prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the revenue authorities evicting him from the land.

(3.) Learned advocate for the 1st respondent on the other hand alleges in his counter that the petitioner had not raised the question of jurisdiction before the Tahsildar at all and not having urged it there, he cannot be permitted to raise it now in this writ petition. The answer to this by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that he did raise it before the Revenue Divisional officer in appeal and consequently it cannot be said that he has not raised the question of jurisdiction before it is urged in this Court. At any rate, when there is total inherent lack of jurisdiction, learned advocate contends, there can be no objection to the High Court entertaining a writ and affording a relief.