LAWS(APH)-1973-4-16

ADDEPALLI PADMAVATHAMMA Vs. TIPPINENI NARASIMBAM

Decided On April 26, 1973
ADDEPALLI PADMAVATHAMMA Appellant
V/S
TIPPINENI NARASIMBAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that arises in this writ petition is whether it is open to a landlord and a tenant under the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act to enter into an agreement and place themselves beyond the terms of section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, hereinafter called "the Act" The facts necessary for the determination of the question involved are these: The petitioner is a landlady and respondents 1 and 2 are the tenants. She leased out in the year 1966 in favour of the 1st respondent on an annual maktha of Rs. 1,000/- an extent of Ac. 632 cents in Karavadi village, Ongole District for a period of five years. The 1st respondent not only defaulted payment of maktha as stipulated, but also sub-leased the land in favour of the 2nd respondent. So, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13 before the Tenancy Tahsildar, Ongole for eviction of respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) During the pendency of the petition, the parties compromised and presented a compromise petition by and under which it was agreed that respondents 1 and 2 shall continue for three more years till 1970 and thereafter shall surrender possession to the petitioner. The Tahsildar passed a compromise order on 29-12-1967 embodying the terms of the compromise. the petitioner, after the harvest in the year 1969-70, filed an execution petition for execution of the compromise decree. On that, the Tahsildar directed delivery of possession to the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 later filed an application asking for redelivery of the lands on the ground that the compromise decree is not executable as it contravened the provisions of the Act, The Tahsildar rejected the application of Respondents 1 and 2 for redelivery of the lands and allowed the execution petition On appeal, the Sub- Collector, Ongole, set aside the order of the Tahsildar as one having been made without jurisdiction and as such a nullity. This writ petition is directed against the order of the appellate authority on the ground that there is nothing in the Act with prohibits a landlord and a tenant from entering into a compromise and asking the Revenue Court to pass a decree in terms thereof and when there is no statutory prohibition, the decree is entorceable.

(3.) Mr. M B. Kama Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited my attention to the relevant provisions of the Act to show that unless there is a specific prohibition in the Act from entering into a compromise like the one in question, it is not open to the Sub-Collector to treat such a compromise as a nullity and non est. This Act has been enacted to give a fair deal to the cultivating tenants and for fixing the period of agricultural leases Section 4 provides for an agreement between the landlord and the tenant in regard to the form of tenancy and in what manner the rent should be paid. It is open to the landlord and tenant under Section 5 to agree between themselves as to the quantum of rent payable for the holding subject to the maximum rent specified in Section 3 Section 6 empowers the Tahsildar. notwithstanding any agreement between the landlord and the cultivating tenant to determine the fair rent for the holding, on an application filed by either of the parties. Section 8 deals with the remission of rent under certain circumstances Section 10 is the relevant section which fixes the period of lease. There have been several amendments to the section. This section to the extent relevant reads :