DADI PERU NAIDU Vs. ADARI VENKATARMANAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision petition should be allowed. This is brought by respondents 2 to 6 in I.A.No, 274 of 1972 in O.S.No. 69 of 1972 in the Principal District Munsif's Court, Yelamanchili. O.S. 69 of 1972 was filed by the second respondent-teaant against the present petitioners for injunction on the ground that he was the tenant of the land and was in possession thereof and consequently was protected by the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act and that he could not be dispossessed The petitioners before me, who are respondants 2 to 6 in the lower court had purchased the land from the first respondent in the revision petition (petitioner before the lower Court) for Rs. 15,000/- under two registered sale deeds dated 18th March, 1972. Pending the suit the first respondent before me filed I.A No. 274 of 1972 in the lowar court under Order 1 Rule 10(1) CPC. to add him as a plaintiff in that suit His contention was that he was the original owner and the second respondent was his tenant. He sold the land to the petitioners on 18th March, 1972 but Rs, 5000/- more than the amount of consideration mentioned in the sale deeds was due to him and in order to defeat that right the purchasers set up the tenant to file the suit He was a necessary party and therefore he should be added. This was opposed not only by the purchasers, who are petitioners before me and respondents 2 to 6 before the lower court, but also by the second respondent-tenant, who was the first respondent in the I A I he lower court allowed the petition holding that the former owner of the land is a necessary and proper party to be added as a plaintiff. The ground on which the lower court came to this conclusion is that even from the plaint averments it was clear that the tenant had not delivered possession to the original owner to enable him to deliver possession to the purchasers. Consequently, the tenant should be deemed or treated as the tenant of the original owner and not the respondents until a notice was issued by the tenant to the original owner as provided by Sec. 1 4 of the Andhra Tenancy Act.

(2.) This is clearly a misreading of the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act. Section 11 declares that in the event of a change in the ownership of any land during the currency of a lease, the cultivating tenant shall be entitled to continue the tenancy on the same terms and conditions as before for the un-expired portion of the lease. Thus, it is very clear that though there is a change in the ownership of the land under lease during the continuance of the tenancy, the cultivating tenant is entitled to continue the tenancy. Therefore, the fact of the sale of the land by the original owner to the vendees does not affect the rights of the tenant. Section 14 is only an enabling section which provides that a cultivating tenant may terminate the tenancy and surrender his holding at the end of any agricultural year during the currency of a lease by giving not less then three months notice in writing expiring with the end of such year to the landlord. It is manifest that a cultivating tenant is only given an opportunity or right to surrender his tenancy.

(3.) It does not require him to surrender his tenancy or deliver possession of the land to the original owner whenever there is a change in the ownership of the land. As Sec. 11 provides, despite the change in ownership the tenancy continues for the unexpired portion of the lease Therefore, the lower court is wrong in thinking that since there is no notice of surrender under Section 14, the tenant must be deemed to be a tenant of the original owner and not that of the purchasers, though the purchase had taken place under registered sale deeds. If the original owner claims any further amount from the purchasers it is for him to take appropriate action to recover that amount from the purchasers The tenant is in no way concerned with it.