POLANGANI BASAVAYYA Vs. KASI VISWESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE ARTHANURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant. He filed a petition under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) for short, ''the Act" as amended by Act XXXIX of 1974, for short, "the Amendment Act", for fixation of fair rent. The Special Officer dismissed the application. On appeal, the appellate authority held that the application filed under Section 6 of the Act is not maintainable by operation of Section 18(2) of the Act, brought on statute by Amendment Act, read with Sec 74(1) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (17 of 1966) for short, "the Endowments Act". It was also held that the Special Officer has rightly dismissed the application on merits. Assailing the correctness of the view taken by the appellate court, this revision has been filed.

(2.) Sri C. Trivikrama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that under section 74(1) (e) of the Endowments Act, no committee as envisaged therein has been constituted and therefore the forum prescribed under the Act continues to be subsisting though Section 74 of the Endowments Act is applicable by operation of Sec. 18(2) of the Act. In support thereof, he relied on K. Narayana Murty Vs. Sub-Collector (1) 1972 (2) A.P.L.J. 356. It is further contended that the appellate Court did not go into the evidence and therefore the finding that the Special Officer has rightly dismissed the application on merits, is no finding according to law.

(3.) Sri S. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that by operation of Section 18(2) of the Act, the forum prescribed under section 6 of the Act has been taken out. Till date though the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Rent Committee Rulas, 1975, for short, "the Rules" have been framed under Section 74 of the Endowments Act, constituting a committee, the members have not been nominated and the said committee did not start functioning. Therefore the remedy open to the petitioner is to file writ petition to command the appropriate authority to constitute the committee and thereafter seek adjudication of his rights Thus, the Special Officer is devoid of jurisdiction. It is next contended that the Special Officer has gone into the evidence and found that the agreed rent under the terms is a fair rent and there is no evidence contra adduced. The Special Officer has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to have the fair rent fixed. Therefore, there is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference in the revision petition.