PALAPARTHI GABRIEL Vs. KAKULA RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents filed an application before the Tenancy Special Deputy Tahsildar, Naraspur, under section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the petitioner from the schedule lands on the ground that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent which was due on 15th January, 1960. The tenant also was guilty of acts of waste. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent-petitioner took the schedule lands on lease for the year 1956-57 from the respondents on condition that they would give 60 bags of sarwa paddy by 15th January, 1957 and 60 bags of dalwa paddy by Visakh Sudda Purnami of the same year. He had also agreed to put the respondents in possession of the lands by 15th of Magha Sudha 1957 in case there was no dalwa and by 15th of Visakha Sudha 1957 in case there was dalwa. It was also prescribed that if the makta was not paid by the due date, the petitioner should pay surchage at 8 lbs. per bag per month. A lease deed incorporating all these terms was executed by the petitioner. The petitioner continued in possession under the lease till the end of the agricultural year 1958-59 and paid the amounts due. The petitioner thereafter remained in possession of the lands for the year 1959-60 and cultivated on the same terms. He has however committed a default inasmuch as he has not paid the agreed rent by 15th January, 1960. In fact, till the date of the application no amount was paid. It was averred by the respondents that depending upon the assurance given by the petitioner that he would vacate the land, the respondents entered into an agreement of sale on 5th October, 1958 for a portion of the land with one Chebrolu Sithamahalakshmamma. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondents and requested them to cancel the agreement of sale and enter into an agreement to sell with the petitioner. In the meanwhile, Chebrolu Sithamahalakshmamma issued notice. The respondent also issued another notice that as the petitioner has committed acts of waste and is in default, the respondents requested for his eviction.

(2.) In his counter, the petitioner contended that Pennada Agraharam in which the schedule lands are situated is an estate village and that he has been cultivating the said lands for the last more than 15 years as ryot and that therefore the respondents can have only melwaram rights, the petitioner having kudiwaram. The petitioner admitted the execution of kadapas but contended that they are not enforceable.

(3.) His contention was that after the Rent Reduction Act was made applicable to the village, he was always willing to adjust the rent due to the respondents. The petitioner claimed in himself coccupancy rights and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar entertaining the application under section 13 of the Act as the village in which the lands are situated is an inam village and the petitioner has occupancy rights as a ryot over the lands. Upon these pleadings the Tahsildar framed several issues and after recording the evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the petition. He held that Pannada Agraharam is a whole inam village and as such is an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. He held that the question whether the schedule lands constitute home-farm lands of the respondents is a matter which has to be decided under the Estates Land Act. Even if the lands are home-farm lands, the question of evicting the petitioner for the alleged default does not fall with in the purview of the Act. In the end he came to the conclusion that as the estate has not as yet been taken over by the Government, the relationship of landholder and ryot exists and the proper course is to proceed under sections 151 and 158 of the Estates Land Act. As the matter does not fall within the purview of the Act, the petition was dismissed.