RAGAM VENKATESWARLU Vs. GODAVARTHI VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The respondent filed a suit for possession and mesne profits from 24-2-1978 till the date of delivery of the possession of the suit land. He filed the suit on the ground that the appellant is a trespasser and is not entitled to continue in possession. According to him, Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (Act XVI of 1956) (hereinafter called 'the Act') postulates issuance of a notice by a legal representative within three months from the demise of the cultivating tenant exercising option by serving a notice in writing to the landlord. The appellant did not perform the statutory obligation cast under Section 12 of the Act and, therefore, he became disentitled to the benefits of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, he is liable to be ejected. The trial court dismissed the suit and on appeal it was reversed and the suit was decreed. Thus the Second Appeal.

(2.) It is the contention of the appellant that his father was originally inducted into possession as a tenant and while he was continuing as a tenant, in a litigation between the parties, the suit O.S. No. 322/66 was filed by the father of the defendant and pending the suit, he died. The appellant came on record as legal representative of his father-tenant and this constitutes a notice in compliance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and that no separate notice need be given. That contention was accepted by the trial Couri, but not accepted by the appellate court. The same is reiterated here in this Second Appeal by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff.

(3.) Therefore, the question is whether the order passed by the Court under Order 22, Rule 3 C.P.C. constitutes a notice contemplated under Section 12 of the Act. Section 12 postulates thus