KALAPALLI GANGAMMA OF POLAVARAM Vs. NALLA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arising out of an application filed by the petitioner-landlord to evict his tenant. The legal representatives of the tenant are the respondents herein. The grounds for eviction were those mentioned in clauses (a) and (e) of section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, hereinafter referred to as " the Act". The Tahsildar, Polavaram, who heard the application in the first instance, allowed it on the ground that the tenant had wilfully denied the landlord's title to the land. This is the ground mentioned in clause (e) of section 13 of the Act. Regarding clause (a) of section 13, he held that there was no failure on the part of the tenant to pay rent within the period prescribed by that clause. The tenant appealed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, under section 16 (2) of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Officer agreed with the finding of the Tahsildar that there was no default in payment of rent by the tenant. But he differed from the Tahsildar on the question of disclaimer of the landlord's title. He held that in the circumstances of the case the tenant had not repudiated the title of the landlord. In this view, he dismissed the eviction application. The landlord has therefore come up to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord has not canvassed before me the correctness of the concurrent finding of the two tribunals below that the tenant had not committed default in payment of rent within the meaning of clause (a) of section 13 of the Act. But he has challenged the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the tenant had not wilfully denied the title of the landlord to the land. The entire basis on which the allegation of the denial of landlord's title by the tenant is founded, is the plaint in O.S. No. 169 of 1959 in the Court of the District Munsif of Kowur which was instituted by the tenant against the landlord for an injunction to restrain the landlord from interfering with the tenant's enjoyment of the suit land till the end of the year Sobhakruthu in view of the provisions of the Act. It is necessary here to set out briefly the circumstances which led to the institution of the suit by the tenant.

(3.) The land was held by the tenant under a lease deed dated 10th April, 1955, reserving a term of two years. Taking advantage of the term reserved by the lease, the landlord issued a notice to the tenant calling upon him to surrender possession of the land. What is more, the landlord granted a lease of the land in favour of a stranger, who was impleadcd as the and defendant in O.S. No. 169 of 1959, already adverted to. This caused apprehension in the mind of the tenant that he was soon likely to be dispossessed of the land. Consequently, he instituted the suit asking for an injunction as mentioned above, and obtained a decree. The plaint in that suit set up inter alia that the family of the tenant had been in possession and enjoyment of the land for a period of about sixty years and that under the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act the tenant had acquired occupancy right. Plaintiff referred to this occupancy right in another place in the plaint as 'Kudivaram right.' The plaint proceeded to say that by the long possession and enjoyment of the suit land, the tenant had obtained a right by adverse possession to continue on the land as a tenant. These are the plaint allegations which are now relied upon by the landlord to make out that the tenant had wilfully denied his title to the land.