NOOKALAPATI RAMIREDDY DIED Vs. OFFICIAL RECEIVER NELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Fasli 1371, the appellant in this second appeal obtained a lease of certain land from the Official Receiver, Nellore, in whom the property of an insolvent vested in I.P. No. 9 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kavali. The lease was for one Fasli only i.e., it would expire on 1st July, 1962. But the appellant before me, who was the tenant, filed LA. No. 793 of 1962 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kavali, under section 4 of the Provincial INsolvency Act for a declaration that he is not liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act for the reason that he is entitled to continue as tenant under section 10 of the said Act. That petition was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, Kavali and the order of dismissal was upheld by the learned District Judge, Nellore. Hence this second appeal. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it cannot be denied that the appellant was a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Andhra Tenancy Act for Fasli 1371 and that he cannot be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act. He further pointed out that, under section 10 of the Act, the minimum period of every lease entered into between a landlord and his cultivating tenant, after the commencement of the Act shall be six years and the mere fact that the Official Receiver auctioned the leasehold interest for only one year does not make any difference as the case is governed by the Andhra Tenancy Act. It is argued by Mr. Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent that the Official Receiver is not a landlord. But the Act defines the word " landlord " as follows : " (f) ' Landlord ' means the owner of a holding or part thereof who is entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from such holding or part, and includes the heirs, assignee, legal representatives of such owner, or person deriving rights through him ; "

(2.) THERE can be no doubt that, on the adjudication of the debtor, the property of the debtor vested in the Official Receiver. THERE can also be no doubt that, in the present case it was the Official Receiver that put the appellant in possession as a tenant though only for one year. It is the Official Receiver, who is entitled to evict the appellant within the definition of the word ' landlord ' in section 2 (f) of the Act. THEREfore, it follows that the appellant is a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Andhra Tenancy Act and he cannot be evicted except as provided in section 13 of the Act. I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Subba Reddy that the Official Receiver is not a landlord and that the appellant is not the tenant. He further argued that what was granted by the Official Receiver at the auction was not a lease in favour of the appellant. This argument, in my opinion, is farfetched. What was put up for auction was the right to cultivate the lands for one year and the appellant became the highest bidder and he was put in possession. Surely, it cannot be suggested that the appellant was not a tenant for Fasli 1371. The learned District Judge negatived the claim of the appellant for the reason that there was no written lease for six years as provided in section 10 of the Act. The said Act merely prescribes the priod of six years as the minimum period for which a tenant can be put in possession. But, when a landlord wants to evict his cultivating tenant, he can dp so only under section 13 of the Act. For the above reasons, the second appeal is allowed and I.A. No. 793 of 1962 is allowed. The appellant will have his costs of these proceedings throughout. Leave to appeal is granted. G.S.M. Appeal allowed,