GORLA BUCHAYYA Vs. MUKALA SWAMI NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition involves the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 (XVIII of 1956) (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act). This has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J., who heard it in the first instance, as there is no direct decision bearing on the question posed by this revision and to have an authoritative decision. The facts material for the purpose of the present enquiry lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows. The petitioners and the respondent put forward competing titles to a holding in Panduri village in the Mallavaram estate which was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 15th June, 1955. The petitioners claimed to be the ryots in respect of these lands by virtue of being the tenants under the landlord, one Adepureddi Govaramma, while the respondent traced his occupancy rights to a lease obtained from another person of the same name, Govaramma. Both parties approached the Settlement Officer for the issue of ryotwari patta each claiming to be the occupancy tenant in regard to these lands.

(2.) Pending final adjudication by the Settlement Officer, the respondent invoked section 13 of the Tenancy Act for evicting the petitioners from the lands in question. Before we proceed with the determination of the question that arises for consideration, it is convenient to read section 13 of the Tenancy Act in so far as it is relevant for the present enquiry. It reads : "Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 10, 11 and 12, no landlord shall be entitled to evict his cultivating tenant during the currency of a lease except by an application made in that behalf to the Tahsildar and unless, such cultivating tenant- (a) has failed to pay the rent due by him within a period of one month from the date stipulated in the lease-deed, or in the absence of such stipulation within a period of one month from the date on which the rent is due according to the usage of the locality and in case the rent is payable in the form of a share in the produce, has failed to deliver the produce at the time of harvest ; The petition giving rise to this revision case was grounded on the allegation that the petitioners, the lessees of the present respondent, committed default in the payment of rent, thus seeking to bring the matter within the ambit of section 13 (a) of the Tenancy Act.

(3.) The present petitioners opposed the petition on the pleas that the respondent had no manner of right to the property in question, that they had acquired both melwaram and kudiwaram rights in the lands and that it was not competent for the Tahsildar to inquire into questions of title relating to these lands. The Deputy Tahsildar to whom this matter was transferred negatived this contention in the view that section 13 of the Tenancy Act enabled him to adjudicate on the matters that have a bearing on the relief asked for. It is this opinion that is the subject of challenge before us. The short point for decision is whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to decide as to who really has title to the lands in question. In solving the problem before us, we have to bear in mind the circumstance that the title of the respondent has not so far been recognised or accepted in any proceedings.