R SEETHARAMAYYA Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR TENALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Ravipati Seetharamaiah is the petitioner in both these Writ Petitions. He claims to have taken two acres of land of Sri Divi Ranganadha Charyulu, the 2nd respondent on lease on 8-4-1974 on an annual rental of Rs. 150/-for a period of three years. According to him pursuant to the lease agreement he was put in possession of the land and be had cultivated the land; while so differences arose between him and Ganta Ramakrishnayya, the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is openly proclaming in the village that the 2nd respondent would execute another lease in his favour and oust the petitioner from possession of the land and he is trying to spoil the lady fingers crop which the petitioner has raised in the land. Therefore, he filed the petition, A.T.P. 1 No./8SF, before the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Tenali under S. 16 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 for restraining the respondents .2 and 3 by a permanent injunction from interfering with his possession of the land. Pending that petition he filed an interlocutory application for a temporary injunction. The Deputy Tahsildar granted a temporary injunction on 2-7-1975 against respondents 2 and 3. While so without notice either to the petitioner or his counsel, the Deputy Tahsildar modified the interim order of injunction dated 2-7-1975 by his order dated 7-7-1975 restraining both the parties from entering into the land. Subsequently, on an application filed by the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Tahsildar, without gving notice to the petitioner or his counsel, passed another order dated 17-9-1975 ante dating it as 15-9-1975 vacating the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner on 2-7-1975. So he filed WP No. 4948 of 1975 to quase the order of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 7-7-1975 and W.P. No. 4855 of 1975 to quash the order of the Deputy Tahsildar dated 15-9-1975.

(2.) The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner did not produce the lease agreement before the Deputy Tahsildar and even if there is any such agreement it must have been conected fsr the purpose of litigation and in any case it is invalid in law. He stated that he had entered into a registered lease deed dated 28-6-1975 on an annual rental of Rs. (600/- for a period of six years with the landlord, the 2nd respondent, that he was put in possession of the lands and he had been cultivating them. He denied that the petitioner was in possession of the lands and he had raised lady-finger crop in the lands. He also submitted that the tenancy application is not maintainable, since no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and therefore the Deputy Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 16 of the Act. He further submitted that a dispute between the two cultivating tenants inter se cannot he decided by the Deputy Tahsildar. He also contended that the petitioner has a right of appeal under sectioa 16 (2) of Andhra Tenancy Act and since he has not exhausted it, he cannot maintain this writ petition.

(3.) The 2nd respondent did not file any counter in these Writ Petitions. Since common questions are raised in both the Writ petitions they are disposed of by this judgment. Sri A. VenKataramana, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Tabsildar on 7-7-1975 and 17-9-1975 are void, for he did not give any notice to the petitioner or his counsel before passing those orders. That the Deputy Tahsildar did not give any such notcc is not disputed by the 3rd respondent. On the other hand, Sri Hanumantha Rao, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has submitted that the Tenancy court has no jurisdiction to try A.T.P. No. 1/85-F because the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and even otherwise, a dispute between two co-tenants cannot be decided by the Deputy Tahsildar under Section 16 of the Act. secondly the petitioner has a right of appeal under sec. 16 (2) of the Act and since he did not avail himself of it, this court should refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the constitution. Thirdly neither the Act nor the Rules provided that notice