MOHD IKRAMUDDIN Vs. MOHD ISMAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against an order of the District Revenue Officer, Medak District. The petitioner is the landholder and the respondent the protected tenant with regard to a land in Belalpur village covered by old S.Nos 286 and 334. The landholder filed a petition under secticn 28 (a) of the Act before the Tahsildar, Zahirabad, for recovery of arrears of rent of a sum of Rs. 960 for three years. The rent claimed represents the fair rent fixed earlier by the Deputy Collector as provided under section 11 of the Act. The Tahsildar gave notice to the respondent who filed a written statement but did not choose to attend the enquiry though several opportunities were given to him.

(2.) In the written statement he denied that he is a protected tenant and his liability to pay the rent. On 12th June, 1968 the Tahsildar passed an order holding that he is a protected tenant and granted 90 days time for payment of arrears of rent claimed by the landholder. The respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent within the time granted. The order passed by the Tahsildar became final, no appeal having been filed against it by the respondent. Subsequently the petitioner filed a petition under section 32 of the Act before the Tahsildar for eviction of the respondent and to put him in possession of the land. Notices were issued by the Tahsildar to the respondent. However, the respondent did not appear before the Tahsildar. Finally, on 16th July, 1969 the Tahsildar issued a fresh notice to the respondent. Even then he did not appear. On 12th September, 1969, after hearing the petitioner the Tahsildar passed orders evicting the respondent. Aeainst this order of eviction the respondent filed an appeal before the District Collector, Medak. The District Revenue Officer who heard the appeal passed an order allowing the appeal and that is the order which is now assailed in this revision petition.

(3.) The District Revenue Officer in allowing the appeal held that section 19(2) of the Act is the only provision contained in the Act concerning the termination, of tenancy on the ground that the tenant is in default of payment of rent and that provision empowers the landholder alone to terminate the tenancy. The proviso to section 19 (2) contemplates a notice of six months in writing from the landholder to the protected tenant before such a termination of the tenancy could be effected. In this case the petitioner has not established the fact that he had terminated the tenancy of the respondent as contemplated under section 19 (2) of the Act. Therefore the order dated 12th June, 1968 of the Tahsildar and the subsequent order dated 12th September, 1969 must be deemed to be orders passed without jurisdiction and the Tahsildar is not competent either to terminate the tenancy or to evict the respondent in the absence of any statutory notice contemplated under section 19 (2) of the Act.