PUVVADA CHANGAYYA Vs. SUB COLLECTOR ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved is as to what is the meaning of the expression used in Section 11 of the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) during the currency of lease, whether that expression is confined to the original contracted lease or it also covers the extension in the lease effected by virtue of Section 10(2) of the said Act. While Umamahes-warain, J. held in Thammiraju v. Pentiah, (1960) 1 Andh WR 75 that that expression would be limited to the period for which the parties have entered into a contract and does not extend to the period mentioned in Section 10(2) of the Act, Satyanarayana Raju. J. observed in Subbaraju v. Dandiganapndy Dharma Cheruyu, (1961) 2 Andh WR 144 at p. 147 thai

(2.) Before we deal with this question a preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent has to be disposed of. That is, as the petitioner is no longer in possession of the land and since there is no power under the Act to restore possession, this writ petition has become infractnous. Sri Gopal Bao, on the other hand, contends that while it is so, this Court can and should pronounce upon the validity of the want of jurisdiction of the Tribunals below to entertain the application of the landlord respondent.

(3.) It may be stated that the Tahsildar, on a petition from the respondent had directed eviction of the petitioner. Against that order, the petitioner went in appeal and obtained stay. The Revenue Divisional Officer agreeing with the Tahsildar dismissed the appeal, holding that the words "during the currency of a lease" included the period extended by the statute. This writ petition was filed to quash those orders of eviction. A slay was granted conditional on the payment of Rs. -500 by our learned brother Basi Reddy, J. But notwithstanding this conditional order, the amount was not paid and later, Seshachulupali, J. vacated the stay for non-compliance with the orders of Basi Reddy, 1.