TUJJAKULA TIRAPAYYA Vs. SARVADEVABHATLA VENKATA RAJIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the three tenants, who have been ordered by the Collector, in exercise of his powers under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, to be evicted and to pay arrears of rent. It appears that on October 19, 1953, a petition was filed by the respondents before the Tahsildar, Khammam, claiming from the tenants arrears of rent for 1360 to 1362 fasli. The petition also prayed for the eviction from the lands bearing Survey No. 9/2, 10/2 and 11/2, all of which are situated in Burhampur village, Khammam Taluk.

(2.) The grounds taken for the eviction were that the pattas of the aforesaid lands were in the name of the petitioner, that one of the tenants was protected and the other two were sub-tenants who had acquired tenancy right, that they had agreed to give six khandi of paddy as rent and have made default for four years. It was also mentioned that a similar petition to recover the arrears of rent for 1358 F., was made to the Tahsildar, but it was pending before the Board of Revenue ; that the tenants had claimed therein to hold the patta rights over the lands under a Circular No. 2 of 1949 which related to Jagir lands and provided that persons in occupation of lands in Jagir would get patta rights. The revisiqn petitioners further denied having executed any deed in favour of the landlord. There were also allegations that huge amounts for maintenance of the suit lands have been incurred and losses suffered. A prayer was made that fresh proceedings should be stayed till final order by the Board of Revenue in the earlier proceedings. The Tahsildar by his order of March 14, 1955, directed the tenants to pay arrears of rent before April 1, 1955 and in default to be evicted. Admittedly the arrears of rent had been deposited in the Tahsil. Aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar the respondent had filed an appeal before the Collector, who on January 20,1956, directed eviction of the tenants on the ground of their being defaulters and varied the order of the Tahsildar regarding their continuing in possession of the lands on payment of the arrears. The appellate authority has further directed that the revision petitioners should pay the arrears of rent to the landlord.

(3.) Obviously the powers of this Court of interfering with the orders passed under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act XI of 1950 are limited and section 91 enumerates the several grounds on which the revisions against the orders of revenue authorities can be entertained. It follows that unless the order of the Collector be shown to be covered by one or more of the three grounds enumerated in the section, it cannot be vacated. The learned counsel has pressed before me two reasons for treating the appellate order of the Collector to be in excess of jurisdiction. He has argued that the eviction of revision petitioners because they were protected tenants could not be ordered in exercise of powers under section 28 of the Act. His reasons are that the aforesaid section is in a Chapter which is not headed as that concerning protected tenants and therefore the provisions cannot extend to such tenants. I am not convinced of the correctness of the argument. Obviously some provisions of the Act are of general application and would cover cases of all tenants. In addition to these of general application there are others covering special cases ; but the special provisions should not be construed as excluding altogether protected tenants from the application of general rules. They would extend to such tenants unless there be express exemptions and I find there is no such exemptions from the operation of section 28. Therefore the ground for treating the order of the Collector to be beyond jurisdiction fails.