RAGU RAGHAVA RAO Vs. TENANCY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three writ petitions, which were referred by one of us (Chinnappa Reddy,J) for the decision of a Division Bench on account of the conflict between the views expressed by Kondaiah,J., in VEERA SWAMI V. SUB COLLECTOR (1)1974 (2) APLJ 397and Madhava Reddy, j., in SRINIVASA RAO V. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (2) 1974 (2) APLI 27, raise common questions and may be disposed of by one judgment. It is enough if we refer to the facts of the case in WP 4166/75. The 2nd respondent in WP. No. 4166/75 filed a petition purporting to be under Sec 16(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act before the Tenancy Tahsildar, Tanuku to declare him as the tenant of 83 cents of land in R. S. No. 38/3 of Penumantra village and to restrain the landlord (Petitioner in the writ petition) from taking forcible possession of the land by illegal means. He also sought an interim injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with his possession. The application was opposed by the present petitioner who leaded that the land was under his personal cultivation. It was also pleaded that the Tenancy Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the 2nd respondent for a declaration and injunction. The Tenancy Tahsildar over-ruled the objection of the petitioner and granted an interim injunction. in this application for the issue of a writ the petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tahsildar to entertain the petition, purporting to be under sec. 16 (I) of the Andhra Tenancy Act, for a declaration and an injunction.

(2.) Sri M. Rajasekhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tenancy Tahsildar was incompetent to grant a declaration or to grant an injunction which reliefs, he said, could only be granted by a Civil Court. He relied on the decisions of Gopalrao Ekbote, J., in NAGANNAV. VENKAMMA (3) 1964(2) An. W. R. 465, Madhava Reddy, J., in SRINIVASA RAO V. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(2) 1974 (2) A.P.LJ. 27 and one of us Chinnappa Reddy,J) in W. P. 4521/1973. Sri Y. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the second respondent relied upon the decision of Kond'aiah,J., in VEERASWAMI V. SUB COLLECTOR (I) Chandra Reddy, C. J, and Narasimham, J., in DALEPPA V. RAMULU (4) (1964) (I) An. W R. 52 and the Supreme Court in MAGITI SASAMAL V. PANPAB BISSOY (5) (AIR 196. S. C. 547). He also invited our attention to the observations in SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FAIZABAD V. S. N. SINGH (6) AIR 1960 S.C. 140 and DONTI REDDY VENKATA REDDY V. BHEEMAVARAPU BHUSH1 REDDY (7) (AIR 1971 A.P.(F.B)87).

(3.) In order to resolve the question it is necessary to refer to the object, the scheme and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956). The preamble to the Act states that it is an Act to provide for the payment of fair rent by cultivating tenants and for fixing minimum period of agricultural leases in the State of Andhra. 'Cultivating tenant' is defined by Sec.2(c) of the Act as meaning a person who cultivates by his own labour or by that of any other member of his family or by hired labour under his supervision and control, any land belonging to another under a tenancy agieement. Sec. 3 prescribes the maximum rate of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to a landlord. Section 4 permits the landlord and his cultivating tenant to come to an agreement in regard to the form of tenancy. Section 5 permits the landlord and the cultivating tenant to enter into an agreement regarding the quantum of rent subject to the maximum rent specified in Sec. 3. Section 6 provides for the determination of fair rent by the Tahsildar, notwithstanding any agreement between the landlord and the cultivating tenant. It's provided that either the landlord or the cultivating tenant may make an application for the fixation of fair rent and that on receipt of such application the Tahsildar shall make an enquiry in the manner prescribed and determine the fair rent having due regard to the several factors mentioned in the Section. Section 8 enables the Tahsildar to order such remission of rent due by the cultivating tenant in any year where there is a total or partial failure of crops due to widespread calamities such as cyclone drought or flood. The cultivating tenant who seeks remission of rent is required to make an application to the Tahsildar at least fifteen days before the crop is cut and removed and after serving a copy of such application on the landlord. Sec. 10 prescribes that the minimum period of every lease between a landlord and his cultivating tenant shall be six years. Section 11 enables the cultivating tenant to continue the tenancy on the same terms and conditions as before for the the unexpired portion of the lease where there Is a change of ownership of the land during the currency of a lease. It however, provides that where the land is held by a cultivating tenant under a receiver appointed by a court the tenancy shall terminate on the expiry of the agricultural year in which the land ceases to be under the management of the receiver. Sec. 12 enables the widow and heirs of the cultivating tenant to continue the tenancy after the death of the cultivating tenant for the unexpired portion of the lease on the same terms and conditions on which the deceased cultivating tenant was holding the land, provided they exercise an option to that effect within three months from the date of demise of the cultivating tenant. Sec. 13 prescribes that, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 10, II and 12 no landlord shall be entitled to terminate the tenancy and evict his cultivating tenant during the currency of a lease except by an application made in that behalf to the Tahsildar and unless such cultivating tenant has committed default in payment of the rent due to by him or has done any act or had been guilty of any neglect, destructive or permanently injurious to the land or has sub-let the land or has violated any of the conditions of the tenancy regarding the uses to which the land may be put or has wilfully denied the landlord's title to the land or has failed to comply with any order passed or direction issued by the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer under the Act. Thus, Sec. 13 confers on the cultivating tenant the right not to be evicted except by an application to the Tahsildar and only on the grounds specified in the section. Sec. 14 provides for the surender of a holding by the cultivating tenant by giving not less than three months' notice in writing expiring with the end of an agricultural year to the landlord. Sec. 15 requires every cultivating tenant to vacate his holding and deliver possession to the landlord not laterthan one month before the commencement of agricultural year immediately following the last year of his tenancy. Sec. 16 provides for the adjudication of any dispute between the landlord and a cultivating tenant, provides for an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer against the decision of the Tahsildar and makes his decision final. We are ned with the construction of this section. We may, therefore, extract the whole of the section.