SESHACHELAPATI VENKATESAM Vs. MANAPURAM SIVUDU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Civil Revision Petition, which has been referred to a Bench at the instance of pur learned brother Jaganmohan Reddy, J., the question that we have to determine is whether or not an appeal would lie to the Revenue Divisional Officer against an order passed by the Tahsildar directing the addition of supplemental parties in a petition filed under section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act and pending before him for adjudication. The facts of this case are within a narrow range and may be stated very briefly. The third respondent in this Revision Petition, Ananthapantula Ramalingaswamy, filed under section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, O.P. No. 1 of 1958 on the file of the Tahsildar, Parvatipuram, for evicting Rowthu Papi Naidu and Chinnam Naidu. Subsequently, some of the alienees, Kannam Naidu and two others were also impleaded as respondents 3 to 5. The respondents to that petition were stoutly contesting the petition for eviction. While so, Manapuram Sivudu Naidu and Manapuram Krishnamurthy filed M.P. No. 5 or 1958 in T.A. i of 1958 before the Tahsildar for being impleaded as supplemental respondents on the ground that they were the direct tenants of the landlord and the respondents, Rowthu Papi Naidu and others were under-tenants holding under the petitioners in M.P. No. 5 of 1958. That application was strongly resisted by Rowthu Papi Naidu and others, who claim that they were the direct tenants holding under the landlord. The landlord filed a counter-affidavit stating that Rowthu Papi Naidu and Chinnam Naidu were inducted into possession on the recommendation of Manapuram Musali Naidu ; but nevertheless he stated that he had no objection to the Manapuram people being impleaded as supplemental respondents, if it was held that they were necessary or proper parties. The Tahsildar in and by his order, dated i4th November, 1958, held that the lands were in the cultivation of the Manapuram people till very recently and that for the proper adjudication of all questions involved in the eviction petition,, it was necessary that the petitioners in M.P. No. 5 of 1958 should be impleaded as. supplemental respondents. He, therefore, directed their being added as additional parties. Rowthu Papi Naidu and Chinnam Naidu filed A.T.A. No. 30 of 1959 before the Assistant Collector, Parvatipuram. By an order, dated 22nd March, 1959, the Assistant Collector dismissed the appeal in limine as being not maintainable on the ground that in directing the addition of supplemental parties the Tahsildar was acting under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, without reference to section 16 (1) of the Andhra Tenancy Act and that being so an appeal under section 16 (2) was incompetent. It is the correctness of this order that is assailed before us. It would be necessary to set out the relevant statutory provisions for a proper appreciation of the questions debated before us. Section 16 (1) and (2) of the Andhra Tenancy Act runs as follows :- "16. (i) Any dispute arising under this Act between a landlord and a cultivating tenant, including any question relating to the determination of fair rent or the eviction of a cultivating tenant, shall, on application by the landlord or the cultivating tenant, as the case may be, be decided by the Tahsildar after making an enquiry in the manner prescribed. (2) Against any order passed by the Tahsildar under sub-section (i) an appeal shall lie to- the Revenue Divisional Officer, within thirty days of the passing of the order, and the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer on such appeal shall be final." Rule 14 of the Andhra Tenancy Rules is as follows :- "14. (i) All proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Act shall be governed as far as may be by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. (2) IN any proceeding before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer as the case may be, may permit any party to be represented by his agent or legal practitioner : Provided that the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer may at any stage of the proceedings and for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel such permission." Order 1, rule 10 (2), Civil Procedure Code, reads : " The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff, or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added ". O.P. No. 1 of 1958 filed by the landlord, respondent No. 3 in this petition, is certainly a proceeding under the Andhra Tenancy Act. Rule 14 (i), the terms of which have above been extracted, made under section 19 of the Act, provides that all proceedings before the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Act shall be summary and be governed as far as may be by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Neither the Tahsildar nor the Collector is a Court. Peyyeti Jagannadha Rao v. Venkateswara Rao. The Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, though performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions are nothing more than administrative Tribunals, on whom; specific powers had been conferred under the Andhra Tenancy Act to decide certain disputes between the landlord and the tenants. Under Rule 14 the rules as to the procedure of the Givil Procedure Code are made applicable to . proceedings under the Andhra Tenancy Act. The addition of supplemental parties within the meaning of Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, is- one of the rules of the Civil Procedure Code which had" been made applicable to proceedings before the Tahsildar and the Collector. The fact that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are made applicable to the enquiries under the Andhra Tenancy Act does not in fact and cannot in law mean that the decision tendered by the Tahsildar is de kors the Andhra Tenancy Act. It is elementary that apart from the provisions of the Act neither the Tahsildar nor the Revenue Divisional Officer can exercise any functions in respect of the adjudication of disputes between the landlord and the tenant. Under section 16 (1) of the Act all questions between the landlord and a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Act have to be decided by the Tahsildar. One of such questions is certainly whether supplemental parties can be added as provided for undter Order i., rule 10 (2), Civil Procedure Code. IN directing the adding of supplemental parties or refusing to add such supplemental parties, the Tahsildar is certainly functioning, under the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act. That being so, we are clearly of opinion that the order of the Tahsildar in the instant case falls within the scope of section 16 (i). It therefore follows that the orders of the Tahsildar are certainly appealable under the terms of sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Andhra Tenancy Act.

(2.) MR. Dikshitulu, the learned counsel for the respondents, has endeavoured to show that it is not every order passed by the Tahsildar in connection with a dispute "between the landlord and cultivating tenant that is made appealable under section 16 (2) of the Act. According to him, section 16 (1) must be given a restricted meaning as comprehending only orders passed by the TahsiJdar under sections 6,7,8 and 13. We find no warrant either in principle or on decided authority for restricting the scope of the language of section 16 (1). On a fair interpretation of the phraseology employed in that provision, we are of the opinion that it comprehends all disputes of whatever kind that arise between the landlord and a cultivating tenant in respect of either the determination of fair rent or the eviction of a cultivating tenant. We, therefore, hold that the 'Order of the Collector cannot be sustained. It is hereby set aside. The petitioners are entitled to have their costs from respondents 1 and 2. We fix the Advocate's fee in this case at Rs. 75. The appeal will now be heard by the Assistant Collector on the merits and be disposed of in accordance with Jaw. Revision allowed; Matter remitted.