P NARAYANA Vs. M VENKATESHWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ponangi Narayana Rao and his son Venkataraju together own four acres of land in RS. S No. 26 of Vadapalli village in Kovvur taluq. The two leased the land to M. Venkateswara Rao in 1965. The rent was Rs. 1,850/- payable in advance on each Ugadi day. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 2,800/- in later years. The dispute'in the cases turn on the issue whether the tenant paid the rents regularly. Whether the tenant defaulted the payment of rent in any year. If so, for what year he defaulted. These are the issues to be determined in the two cases.

(2.) The father and son in two separate applications before the Deputy Tahsildar, Kowur, sought eviction of the tenant under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 on the ground the tenant failed to deliver the demised land after "the sugar cane was cut as promised by him". The Deputy Tahsildar held that tenant was guility of acts of waste as he spoiled the land, defaulted payment of rents and for that reason he was to be evicted. The Revenue Divisional Officer on appeal reversed the indings and allowed the appeal. The land-holders, thereupon, in two writ petitions assailed the appellate order in this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court qushed the appellate order. The cases were remanded for inquiry on the following five issues. They are: "(I) What was the agreed rent payable? (2) Whether any due date was fixed for payment of rent? If so, what was the due date? (3) Whether the tenant committed any default in payment of rent for the year 1969-70? (4) Whether the tenant committed default in payment of rent for the year 1970-71? (5) Whether the payment of rents under Exs. B-1 and B-2 constitute valid payment of rent".

(3.) In the inquiry after remand, it was found there was no default in payment of rent by the tenant for 1969-70. The tenant defaulted in payment of rent for 1970-71, 1971-72. The default for 1970-71 was held waived. But, the tenant was ordered to be evicted for the default of payment in the year 1971-72. This time the tenant approached this Court in two writ petitions. A learned single judge of this Court quashed the eviction prder and allowed the writ petitions. Hence writ appeals by the land-holders.