GADDE VEERRAJU Vs. GADDE SATTEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant who has lost in both the Courts has filed this Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 5.100/- towards damages for use and occupation of the agricultural land which was in his possession for three years nameIy,1972-73,1973-74 &1974-75. The suit was contested on various grounds including that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff in respect of the said land and he had already paid the agreed annual rent of Rs. 1100/- for the aforesaid period of three years and nothing more was payable. There is no controversy now that on the ground of breach of the terms of the tenancy the plaintiff filed a petition for termination of tenancy and eviction of the defendant under Section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 somewhere in the year 1971 before the Tahsildar. The defendant contested that petition but after enquiry eviction was ordered on 9-10-1975. The defendant carried the matter in appeal under the Act which was dismissed on 17-6-1976. Subsequently the defendant was also evicted. The rent at the time of filing of the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Act was Rs. 1100/- per annum. The defendant has paid the amounts at the said rates for the three years now in controversy. The plaintiff has however, claimed in addition a sum of Rs. 1700/- per annum as damages for these three years contending that the tenancy was terminated on the date of the filing of the petitions under Section 13 of the ' Act in 1971 itself and therefore the defendant was no longer his tenant after that date till the order of eviction. The trial court held that after the filing of the petition under Section 13 of the Act the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties came to an end and the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for use and occupation and decreed the suit. The appellate court has also confirmed the said conclusion.

(3.) In support of the Second Appeal it is contended by Sri C V N Sastry. learned counsel for the defendant that the conclusion of the courts that the tenancy stood terminated by mere filing of the petition under Section 13 of the Act is contrary to law. According to him, the tenancy does not come to an end till the Tahsildar finds that the requirements of Section 13 of the Act have been established and orders the eviction. (The question whether it is postponed till the disposal of statutory appeal does not arise in this case). The order of eviction was passed only in October. 1975 and there was no case for granting a decree for damages for use and occupation for any earlier period as the agreed rent for this period has already been paid. He has relied upon the decision of this court reported in D Subba Rao Vs. S Dharmakunta(1) A I R 1971 A P 262 and also the unreported Bench judgment in Thota Veeranarasayya Vs. Goli Narayana Rao & Others ( A S No. 338/1972 judgment dated 31-7-1975).