LAWS(APH)-1963-1-8

KANTHETI SESHARATNAMMA Vs. AKKINENI SATYANARAYANA

Decided On January 30, 1963
KANTHETI SESHARATNAMMA Appellant
V/S
AKKINENI SATYANARAYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that is raised in this appeal is whether a permanent lessor fulfils the definition of a ' landlcrd ' within the connotation of section 2 (f) of the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant granted a permanent lease of the lands in dispute to one A.Suryanarayana on a rental of one hundred bags a year. Subsequently, the lessee transferred his lease-hold rights in the demised land in favour of respondents 1 and 2. We are unconcerned with what transpired between the date of the original lease and the date of this petition. Suffice it to say that, as the transferee-lessees committed default in the payment of rent for the years 1956 and 1957, the appellant invoked sectioA 13 of the Act for evicting the tenants, the permanent lessees. In spite of the opposition of the lessees, the Tahsildar, Bandar, before whom the application was filed, ordered their eviction in the view that failure to pay the rent due by them within a period of one month from the date stipulated in the lease-deed entitled the appellant to an order for eviction.

(2.) On appeal carried by the aggrieved lessees, the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar. It is to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the appellant presented a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although several contentions were urged before our learned brother, Jaganmohan Reddy, J., the only one pertinent for the purpose of this enquiry is whether a permanent lesser in the position of the appellant is a ' landlord ' within the mischief of section 2(f) of the Act. Our learned brother answered it in the negative with the result that the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) It is this view of our learned brother that is canvassed before us in this appeal preferred by the lessor. As the controversy arising in the appeal revolves round section 2 (f) which defines ' landlord ', and section 13 which clothes the landlord with certain rights, it is useful to extract them here.