KEELA NARAYANA Vs. S T P A PADMANABHASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (who will hereinafter be referred to as the tenant) is a tenant of the first respondent (who will hereinafter be referred to as the landlord). According to the terms of the lease, the tenant should pay half of the produce to the landlord Rajabhagam aftef appraisement of the crop every year, The landlord filed a suit, O.S.50/71 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Srikakulam against the tenant on 18/8/71 for recovering the rent for the year 1969-70 and 1970-71. He claimed an amount of Rs. 3,600.00 towards the rent for the year 1969-70 and a sum of Rs. 2,523/- to wards the rent for the year 1970-71. The i tenant pleaded that towards the rent of Rs. 3,600/- payable for the first year, he paid an amount of Rs. 3,400/- and that he adjusted the balance of Rs. 200/- towards the expenses incurred by him for repairing the tank. With regard to the rent for the second year, he pleaded that the plaintiff did not come for appraisement of the crop and that he was always ready to pay the Rajabhagam amount due to the landlord for that year. While the suit was pending, the landlord filed A.T.A. 7/71 before the Tahsildar, Sompet under sec. 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (which will hereinafter be refeired to as the Act) on 17-11-1971 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that he committed default in the payment of rent for the two years, 1969-70 and 1970-71. In O.S. 50/71, the Sub Court held that the tenant paid an amount of Rs. 3,400/- to the landlord towards the rent due for the year 1969-70 and that for that year the tenant had to pay only an amount of Rs. 200/- towards the balance rent. It was further held that the tenant did not pay the rent due for the year 1970-71. Accordingly, the Sub Court passed a decree for Rs 2700/- and odd in favour of the landlord. The landlord filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court. The tenant preferred a Memorandum of Cross objections. The appeal of the landlord was dismissed and the memorandum of Cross- objections of the tenant was allowed in part and the decree against the tenant was modified to Rs. 2266.00.

(2.) Before the Tahsildar, the tenant pleaded that he did not commit any default in the payment of rent and that the petition under Sec. 13 of the Tenancy Act is not maintainable in so far as the landlord did not issue the necessary notice under sec. III (g) of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further pleaded that in so far as the landlord instituted a suit for recovering rent prior to his filing the petition for eviction, it should be deemed that he had waived his right to seek eviction. The Tahsildar rejected all the three contentions of the petitioner and allowed the landlord's petition. In appeal by the tenant, the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the petitioner's appeal under A.T.A. No. 2/74 on 29-7-74. The tenant has come up to this Court with this petition for the issue of writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the orders of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer.

(3.) The fact that the tenant committed default in the payment of rent for the two years in question cannot be gainsaid. The only two contentions raised by Sri A. Surya Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner are, 1