GOTTIPALLI ADINARAYANA Vs. B SIVARAMAKRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner asks the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, in T.A. No. 3 of 1962 be removed to this Court and quashed by a certiorari. It is necessary to narrate a few facts to bring to the fore the controversy between the parties. The petitioner along with the and respondent took seven items of land on lease from the first respondent on an annual rent of Rs. 2,000 for a period of three years. Sometime in April-May, 1962, differences appear to have arisen between the landlord and the petitioner. The petitioner claimed the right to continue as tenant for a further period of three years from July, 1962, in view of the provisions of section 10 (1) of the Andhra Tenancy Act. This the landlord appears to have resisted. What is more, the landlord is said to have made attempts to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands by the petitioner. This led the petitioner to file an application before the Tahsildar, Narasaraopet, under section 16 (1) of the Andhra Tenancy Act to get his right to continue as tenant for a further period of three years recognised and also to injunct the landlord from interfering with his right. The main application he preferred before the Tahsildar was for recognition of his right under section 10 (1) of the Andhra Tenancy Act to continue as lessee for a period of six years from 15th July, 1959 when the original lease was granted to him. He filed an interlocutory petition asking for an injunction to restrain the landlord from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the land as tenant. While disposing of the interlocutory petition for injunction, the Tahsildar disposed of the main application also. He held that under section 10 (3) of the Act the landlord was entitled to resume the land after the termination of the contractual period of three years from 15th July, 1959 and therefore the petitioner had no right to any relief. An appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, did not succeed. The Revenue Divisional Officer while confirming the order of the Tahsildar did one better than the Tahsildar by saying that the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered the lease-hold to the landlord and that therefore there was no scope for the application of section 10 (1) of the Andhra Tenancy Act. Aggrieved by these orders the petitioner has moved this Court by way of writ.

(2.) Only the first respondent who is the landlord contests this Writ Petition. Act cording to him, the order of the Tahsildar as well as that of the Revenue Divisional Officer is correct and well founded. He also says that the petitioner-tenant had no right to continue on the land after the termination of the term fixed in the written lease deed itself. He also says that as the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered the land to him as found by the Revenue Divisional Officer, he cannot be permitted to seek to resume possession subsequently. It is further stated that the relief of permanent injunction which the petitioner asked for before the Tahsildar was misconceived and the Tahsildar was right in rejecting it.

(3.) It is admitted that the lease in question was executed by the petitioner and the second respondent on 15th July, 1959, after the coming into force of the Andhra Tenancy Act. Therefore the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act were attracted to the lease. These provisions confer on a tenant a right to continue in possession of a holding as tenant for a minimum period of six years. It is this statutory right which the tenam sought to get the Tahsildar whom he approached by a petition under section 16 (1) of the Act.