APPALASWAMY E Vs. A APPALASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals relate to the construction of Section 12(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, for short the 'Act'.

(2.) The factual back ground of the case is as follows: The tenant is the appellant in both the writ appeals. He had taken on lease an extent of Acs.3-00 of land in Sy.Nos. 1992/2 & 200/2 situate in Pulla Village, West Godavari District in the year 1966 from one D.V.M. Sitaramasomayajulu and he has also an extent of Ac. 7.00 or Ac. 8.00 of land of his own. On 22-1-1976 the 1st respondent-landlord had purchased the said Ac. 3-00 which was leased out to the tenant. Already hehad an extent of Ac. 29.80 cents along with his three major sons. He filed T.A.No.4 of 1977 before the Tenancy Tahsildar, Eluru for eviction of the tenant for default in payment of rent, which was dismissed on 22-11-1978. Subsequently, mere was a partition on 25-6-1980 by which only this extent of land viz. Ac. 3.00 was allotted to his share. Thereafter, he filed A.T.C. 10 of 1984 before the Principal District Munsif (Special Officer), Eluru for resumption of land for his personal cultivation. The learned District Munsif allowed the petition. On appeal by the tenant in ATA No.51 of 1984, the learned District Judge restricted the resumption of land to an extent of 50% of the leased land. Both the landlord and the tenant filed writ petitions against the order of the District Judge-W.P.No.7486 of l985 by the tenant and W.P.No.10073 of 1985 by the landlord. The tenant's writ petition viz., W.P.No.7486 of 1985 contending that there was no case for any resumption of land at all was dismissed. The landlord's writ petition viz., W.P.No.10073 of 1985 which was for resumption of the entire land was allowed by the learned single Judge. The reason given was that the proviso to Section 12 of the Act limiting the right of resumption only to the extent of leaving to the tenant an area which should not be less than 50% of the leased out land was not properly considered by the learned District Judge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant-tenant contended that the fact that the landlord was not allotted an equal share in the partition gave rise to an inference that the claim for |esumption itself was not in good faith as required by Section 12 of the Act. However, as regards the finding of the learned District Munsif and the learned District Judge as upheld by the learned single Judge that the unequal partition itself was not mala fide, the learned counsel for the tenant was not able to persuade us to take the view that the landlord was not eligible for resumption. However, he argued that the construction of the proviso to Section 12 by the learned single Judge was not in accordance with the general tenor of Section 12 itself. He pointed out that Section 12 as it stood originally granted only a tenure of six years at atime and it was subsequently changed to tenancy in perpectually by the amendment Act 39 of 1974 with effect from 1-7-1980. Similarly, he pointed out that the unamended Section 12 provided continuance of tenancy even after the death of the tenant whereas under the amended Section 12, there is a right of resumption given to the landlord on his fulfilling three conditions viz., that the application is made in good faith, that he shall cultivate the land personally and that on resumption of the land, he shall nothave a holding of land in excess of 2 /3rds of the ceiling area prescribed. He submitted that since Section 12 is an exception to the main thrust of the Act granting a perpectual right to the tenant, it should be construed strictly and if the proviso is also construed in the same manner, it would appear that the real intention of the legislature was to see that 50% of the leased out land is always retained with the tenant. He also submitted that while Section 12 restricts the total extent of land in the hands of the landlords not exceeding 2/3rds of the ceiling area on resumption, the same restriction is not made applicable to the tenant. He further submitted that while enquiry into the total holding of the landlord was envisaged by the main Section, no such enquiry was envisaged by the proviso and there is no method of computation given therein to adopt the construction made by the learned single Judge. He submitted that in these circumstances, the proviso must be construed to mean that a tenant should be left with 50% f the leased out land in each case with the result that the order of the learned District Judge restricting the resumption to 50% of the leased out land must be restored. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-landlord supported the order of the learned single Judge and submitted that the construction was in accordance with the object of the statute.