PULLAGUJJU KRISHNAYYA Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This Writ Petition relates to the question of the jurisdiction of a Tahsildar acting under section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956. The respondent filed a petition for the eviction of the petitioner under section 13 of the Act, alleging that the latter had failed to pay the rent due by him within the stipulated time. While the matter was pending before the Tahsildar, the petitioner put in an application alleging that subsequent to the presentation of the petition, the respondent had received rent from him and had agreed to allow the petitioner to continue in possession of the property for another year. He also filed a receipt evidencing the alleged payment. The Tahsildar refused to go into the question of the payment of rent and the alleged settlement between the parties and rejected the petition. In an appeal carried by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer agreed with the view of the Tahsildar and even remarked that the payment set up by the petitioner was untrue and that the receipt relied upon appeared to be a forged one. It is to quash these orders that this petition has been filed. What we have now to consider is whether the Tahsildar could adjudicate upon the question of the payment of rent and the agreement pleaded by the petitioner. This turns upon the interpretation of section 16 of the Andhra Tenancy Act and rule 3 (6) (c). Section 16 reads as follows :- " (1) 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 inquiry in the manner prescribed. (2) Against any order passed by the Tahsildar, under sub-section (1) 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". It is plain that one of the disputes to be adjudicated upon by the Tahsildar relates to the eviction of a cultivating tenant. Under section 13 of the Act, one of the grounds on which a tenant could be evicted is the failure to pay rent within the time mentioned therein. So, the Tahsildar has to decide whether a cultivating tenant has defaulted in paying rent or not. When the landlord invokes the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar under section 13, alleging that the tenant had incurred the penalty contemplated by section 13 and when the tenant pleads that he had subsequently paid the rent and it was received by the landlord on the understanding that the petition would not be pressed, it is a question to be determined by the Tahsildar within the range of section 16. Whether a tenant is liable to be evicted or not depends upon whether the tenant was in arrears of rent or not, and, therefore, the decision as to the payment of rent is incidental to the question of the eviction of a tenant. Of course, this finding may not operate as res judicata in subsequent proceedings as it is a decision arrived at in a summary way and is only incidental or ancillary to the decision of the question whether the tenant could be evicted or not. Further, there is rule 3 (6) (c) which recites, omitting the unnecessary portions : " On receipt of an application under rule 2, the Tahsildar shall fix a date on which and a place and a time at which, the enquiry in respect of the application will be held, and shall issue notice thereof to the applicant or applicants and to the respondent or respondents mentioned in the application. * * * * * * * (c) to enter upon and inspect any land and do any other act which in his opinion may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder ".

(2.) IT is clear from clause (c) that the Tahsildar is empowered to do any act which he thinks necessary for giving effect to any of the provisions of the Act. In our opinion, an enquiry into the factum of the receipt of rent by the landlord and the agreement to permit the petitioner to continue for another year in possession is necessary" for giving effect to the provisions of section 16 of the Act. Clause (c) of rule 3 (6) enables the Tahsildar to go into the question raised by the petitioner. In this view, it is unnecessary for us to consider the applicability of rule 14 of the Andhra Tenancy Rules, 1957. We, therefore, think that the opinion of the Tahsildar concurred in by the Revenue Divisional Officer that the former had no jurisdiction to decide the question raised by the petitioner could not be upheld. For these reasons, we set aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar and direct the Tahsildar to go into the point raised by the petitioner and decide it on merits. There will be no order as to costs. We are thankful to Mr. Ramachandra Reddi, Government Pleader, for assisting us as amicus curiae. Petition allowed; matter remitted.