KURUBA NAGANNA Vs. SARDESAI KANDANTI VENKAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Second Appeal filed by the tenant who had instituted a suit for the issue of a permanent injunction against the landlord alleging that he is the lawful tenant in possession of the land on behalf of the first defendant. The first defendant unlawfully leased out the same land to defendants 2 and 3 and is making an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence the relief of injunction was sought. The defence raised by the first defendant was that the plaintiff was never his tenant and that he had unlawfully taken possession of the land, but he had surrendered the possession and that is why the first defendant leased out the land to the other two defendants. The contention of the defendants was that, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of injunction. These pleadings went to the trial. The trial Court found on evidence that the plaintiff was a tenant, but he has no lawful right to continue in possession, as he has failed to prove that the tenancy contract was for more than one year. He also held that the civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of section 16 of the Andhra Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act). The matter was taken in appeal by the plaintiff. He was however not successful.

(2.) The lower appellate Court held that although the plaintiff was a tenant and that he had not surrendered the possession to the first defendant, but he has no lawful right to continue as a tenant. The lower appellate Court did not discuss the question of jurisdiction.

(3.) In this Second Appeal two contentions are raised. It was firstly submitted that section 10 of the Act applies to the facts of the case, and that assuming that the plaintiff proved his tenancy only in regard to one year section 10 statutorily extends the period of tenancy and that therefore he has a right to remain in possession. The second contention is that the civil Court has jurisdiction to issue the injunction. Now adverting to the first submission, section 10 of the Act clearly states that all the subsisting tenancies shall be deemed to be extended to the statutory period. It is conceded that on the date when the tenancy of the plaintiff was created, the Act was in force and that section 10 applies to such a tenancy. In this connection reference can perhaps be made to Srinivasa Sastry v. Appayya, (1964) 1 An.W.R. 37. where a Bench of this -Court held :