FIRM OF NAINSUKHDAS BALDEODAS Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR VIZIANAGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 220 of the Constitution questioning the legality of the order passed by the Assistant Collector on 17-10-1960. It arose in the following circumstances: The property in question was mortgaged. The mortgagee instituted a suit O. S. No. 193 of 1938 and obtained a decree for sale on 24-2-1942. A receiver seems to have been appointed on 5-8-1948. That receiver gave the lands in question on lease for one year at an annual rent of Rs. 400 to the respondent. That amount was to be paid in two instalments, one by September, and the other by December. The first receiver appointed subsequently died and one Rajeswara Rao was thereupon appointed as the receiver. The receiver obtained permission to privately sell the land on 2-12-1954 from the concerned Court in pursuance of which the receiver called for tenders. As the tender of the petitioner was the highest, it was accepted with the permission of the High Court on 6-2-1958. The required sale-deed was executed and registered on 17-4-1958. The receiver issued a notice to the respondent on 28-1-1958 informing him of the sale. The tenant thereupon through his reply, dated 6-5-1958 contended that under Section 10 (2) of the Andhra Tenancy Act, he is entitled to continue as a tenant although the lease period was over.

(2.) On 11-10-1958, the petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act for eviction on various grounds. That petition was resisted by the tenant. The Tahsildar, who had heard that petition, dismissed the application holding that the tenant has not committed any default. He also held that any default committed during the time when the vendor was the landlord cannot be taken advantage of by the vendee. In regard to Section 11, he held that the tenant can continue under Section 11 (2) of the Act. The landlord, therefore, wont in appeal before the Assistant Collector. His appeal, as stated earlier, was dismissed by him. He almost concurred with the opinion expressed by the Tahsildar. It is this view of the Assistant Collector which is now assailed before me in this writ application.

(3.) Three contentions were raised by Mr. Narasimha Iyengar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was firstly urged that the tenant had deposited Rs. 200 with the receiver at the time when he took the lands on lease. Although the receiver, according to Ex. A-4, gave notice to the respondent that the said amount will be adjusted towards the amount due for the year 1957-58, the tenant had withdrawn that amount and consequently the amount could not be adjusted. The tenant thus was in default to that extent. His contention is that the vendee can take advantage of any default committed during the time when the vendor was the landlord. Secondly, it was "urged that there has been default not only in the year 1958-59 but also subsequently till today. The tenant has not so far paid anything towards the rent. It was finally urged that in view of Section 11 of the Act, as the period of lease has come to an end, the tenant must be evicted as he cannot take advantage of Section 10 (2) of the Act.