GOKINA BOYINA CHINNAYYA Vs. INDUKURI SIVARAMARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of the order of the District Munsif, Kovvur in I.A. No. 1639 of 1954 in O.S. No. 587 of 1953 declining to stay the trial of the suit. I.A. No. 1639 of 1954 was filed under section 4(1) of the Andhra Inam Tenants Prelection Ordinance (No. IV of 1954) by the defendants who were sought to be evicted from an extent of 19 acres and 44 cents in the Mokhasa village of Kunchanapalli in their possession. The plaintiff claims to be a permanent lessee of these and other lands from the inamdar under a registered lease deed dated 20th April, 1953. It is the plaintiff's case that before he got the permanent lease from the inamdar in 1953, he was an yearly tenant of the lands and the defendants were his sub-tenants paying him an yearly rent. He alleged that soon after he obtained a permanent lease from the inamdar, the defendants surrendered possession of the lands to him and agreed to hold the lands for the years 1953-54 on a fresh tena , subject to certain terms and conditions which however, had not been complied with. The defendants pleaded that they were tenants with permanent rights of occupancy, having been admitted to the possession of the lands by the previous landholder and that they were never the sub-tenants of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is-and for the purposes of this revision petition it may be assumed to be correct-that the mam lands now in question are not situated in an "estate" as denned in section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The inam grant has to be taken to be of less than a village. Ordinance IV of 1954 subsequently replaced by Act XIV of 1954 would apply to the case.

(2.) Section 4 (1) of the Ordinance which is almost in the same terms as section 4 (1) of the Act XIV of 1954 ran as follows :

(3.) Sri E. Venkatesam, the learned Advocate for the respondent, contended that the defendants were not "tenants" within the definition of section 2 (4) of the Ordinance. He referred me to the allegation in the plaint that the lands were originally let out in the year 1944 to the defendants for "pasturage" and argued that the lands were not held for the purpose of cultivation as required by section 2 (4). But then it is the plaintiff's case that there was a fresh arrangement in April, 1953, under which the defendants were allowed to hold the lands as his tenants. Reference may be made in this connection to the allegation in paragraph 8 of the plaint that a notice was issued on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendants claiming a "right to take possession of the property with all the crops therein". In paragraph 11 of the plaint, the cause of action is stated to have arisen "towards the end of April, 1953, when the defendants entered into the property on a conditional lease.....and on nth August, 1953, when the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants terminating the tenancy."