BOPPUDI VISWANADHAM Vs. LAKSHMINARASIMHASWAMYVARU TEMPLE KOMMARAVALLIPADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal. The plaintiffs had filed O.S.No. 491/76 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Narasaraopet for a permanent injunction against the defendant-temple from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and from holding auction of the lease hold rights of the lands belonging to the temple of which the plaintiffs claimed to be the tenants. The plaintiff's case as presented In the plaint was that the plaint schedule lands were taken on lease by the plaintiff's family from the temple some three decades back and after the death of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the lands, to is therefore, claimed that the plaintiffs are the lessees of the temple. But they pleaded that the Executive Officer of the temple was interfering with their possession and was 'rying to put these lands for auction. The defendant-temple had filed b written statement in which it denied the truth of these allegations. In addition to the denial of the plaint allegations, the defendant-temple had also pleaded that the suit could not be entertained in a civil court.. The defendant's case was that only a revenue court can try the dispute as presented by the plaintiffs. The trial court had framed the necessary issues, one of which was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Both the courts below answered that question in the negative and against the plaintiffs and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Thus arose this second appeal.

(2.) In this Second Appeal, Sri C. Seetharamaiah, learned counsel for the appellants in a well prepared and well documented argument, urged that the courts below erred in holding that this matter can be tried only by a revenue court under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act No XVIII of 1956). herein-after referred to as 'the Tenancy Act', and not by the civil court, The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is in two parts. Firstly, he argued that what the plaintiffs were seeking in this suit is a declaration to the effect that they were the tenants and for a consequential injunction based upon that declaration The learned counsel for the appellants said that the revenue court under the provisions of the above Tenancy Act, cannot grant either of these reliefs and therefoie, the civil court alone is the proper forum for adjudication of the rights of the plaintiffs. Alternatively, the learned counsel also argued that the revenue court had not been invested with the power to grant the relief of injunction prayed for by the plaintiffs and therefore, even if the revenue court can grant the relief of a declaration under Section 16 of the Tenancy Ait, the relief of injunction being unavailable for a revenue court to grant to the plaintiffs, the civil court alone is the proper forum.

(3.) The Tenancy Act of 1956 was enacted for the payment of fair rent by cultivating tenants and for fixing the minimum period of agricultural leases in the Stae of Andhra Pradesh. Under its provisions and more particularly of Section 13, a landlord is denied his common iaw right to evict his cultivating tenant during the currency of a lease except by an application made by him in that behalf to the Tahsildar, on the basis of certain conditions mentioned in that section. The substance of the to evict the plaintiffs-tenants during the currency of a lease without an application made to the Tahsildar and contrary to the aforesaid Section 13 This plaint complaint made to the civil court, in my opinion, squarely falls within the terms of Section 13 of the aforesaid Tenancy Act. Now, Section 16 (1) of the Tenancy Act provides that any dispute arising under the Tenancy Act between a landlord and a cultivating tenant shall, on an application made by the landlord or the tenant, be decided by the Tahsildar after making an enquiry in the manner prescribed. The rights which have been created under Section 13 in favour of the tenant are the result of the aforesaid Tenancy Act and are in derogation of the common iaw rights of the landlord. That Tenancy Act itself has provided a special forum for enforcement of these rights. That forum is as mentioned in Section 16, It is now well settled that where special rights have been created by a statute and that statute provides a special forum for the enforcement of those rights the jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with the complaints based upon the infringement of those rights, is barred.