KONURI CHENCHAMMA Vs. NALAMOTU KOTAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is preferred against the order of our learned brother Ramachandra Raju, J. dismissing the Writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the order in A.T.A. No. 4 of 1978 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole confirming the order of the Tenancy Tahsildar, Addanki, in A.T.P. No. 6 of 1385 Fasli dismissing the petition of the appellant filed under section 13(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as' the Act'). The appellant purchased under a registered sale deed dt. 12 -8 -1974 land of an extent of Ac. 0 -40 cents in Survey No. 140 and Ac. 1 -35 cents in Survey No. 141 of Kothakota Village in Addanki taluk from one Ravuri Sambasiva Rao. The first respondent was holding the land as a tenant under Ravuri Sambasiva Rao for four years from 1970 -71. After the purchase of the land by the appellant in 1974, when he tried to enter into possession of the land the first respondent caused obstruction of the same. Thereupon the appellant filed a suit O.S. No. 319 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Addanki and obtained temporary injunction on 10 -9 -1974 restraining the first respondent from cultivating the land. Later the temporary injunction was vacated on 31 -12 -1974. The appellant carried the matter in appeal to the District Court, but the same was dismissed on 10 -3 -1975. Thereafter the appellant filed a petition A.T.P. No. 6 of 1385 Fasli on 28 -7 -1975 before the Tenancy Tahsildar, Addanki, under, section 13(a) of the Act alleging that the appellant became the landlord after the purchase of the land from the previous owner on 12 -8 -1974 and that Makta for the land was the payable by 'Maghbahula Amavasya' of each year, that the first respondent knowing full well that the appellant had become the landlord failed to pay the makta for the year 1974 -75 by the due date or within the grace period allowed under the Act, and thus committed default in the payment of rent and was liable to be evicted under section 13(a) of the Act.

(2.) THE first respondent filed a counter alleging that she was not aware of the purchase of the land by the appellant in August, 1978, that the appellant obtained temporary injunction in the suit, O.S. No. 319 of 1974 on 10 -9 -1974 by the time the first respondent had made the land ready for transplantation of tobacco seedlings that the temporary injunction was vacated on 31 -12 -1974 by which dated the transplantation season for tobacco was over, that the first respondent was unable to cultivate or enjoy the land during the period the temporary injunction was in operation, that she was put to loss to the tune of Rs. 3,000/ - and it was on account of the injunction obtained by the appellant, that the respondent was unable to be in possession and enjoyment of the land and that the appellant himself was liable to compensate the first respondent for the loss sustained by her. It was further stated that as the first respondent was deprived of the possession and enjoyment of the land she could not pay the makta for the year 1974 -75 and therefore there was no default much jess any willful default on her part in the payment of makta for the year 1974 -75 and that for the subsequent year 1975 -76 the first respondent cultivated the land and deposited the makta as the appellant failed to receive the same and therefore the petition for eviction on the ground of default in payment of makta for the year 1974 -75 was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) CHALLENGING the order of the Tahsildar as confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the appellant filed a writ petition. No. 5975 of 1980 and our learned brother Ramachandra Raju, J., held that in view of the injunction order obtained by the appellant from the civil court, the first respondent could not enjoy the land and realise the usufruct for the year 1974 -75. The learned judge observed as follows: