RAJA CHINTALAPATI SEETHARAMAMURTHY RAJU Vs. NADIMPALLI RAMA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question in this case is whether the Sub-Collector, Vizianagaram, was right in dismissing the appeal as not tenable because the appeal wafiled by a person who since the date of the order rejecting the application for evicstion has sold his properties to some one else.

(2.) The petitioner is the landlord and the respondents 1 to 5 are the tenants. The petitioner filed a petition for eviction against these respondents on 2Oth December, 1959, on grounds open to him under section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar, before whom the petition was filed, dismissed the petition on 28th October, 1960. On 15th November, 1960, the petitioner sold the property to one B. Sitarama Rao under a registered sale deed, one of the conditions of which was that, the vendor, the petitioner, will take all proceedings at his own costs to get the tenants evicted from the land and deliver possession of the same. In pursuance of it, the petitioner filed an appeal on 18th December, 1960, before the Sub-Collector. The Sub-Collector while recognising that under the general law the appeal would be maintainable, nonetheless held that the Andhra Tenancy Act, being a special Act, no longer vests him with a right to file this appeal as he cannot be considered to be a landlord within the meaning of section 2 (/) of the Andhra Tenancy Act. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the Sub-Collector omitted to notice the provisions of rule 14 (i) of the Rules made under the Andhra Tenancy Act which makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable as far as may be to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act. If this provision was kept in view, Order 22, rule 10, read with rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, would have persuaded him to accept the appeal as tenable.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the respondents-tenants, on the other hand, strenuously contended that firstly the words "as far as may be" in rule 14(1) mean to the extent necessary and as far as possible not inconsistent with the provisions ; secondly, the application of Order 22, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, is inconsistent with the provisions of the Tenancy Act inasmuch as the right to have the tenant evicted is vested in the landlord who according to the definition in section 2 (f) of the Tenancy Act is the assignee ; and thirdly, that on the date when the appeal was filed, the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the land, and that since he was declared statutorily as the tenant of the assignee, it is only the assignee who could evict him and not the petitioner who had lost his rights in the land.