KOTU PICHAYYA Vs. KANDALLA SATYANARAYANA CHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that falls for determination in this revision petition, filed under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act against the orders of the Subordinate Judge. Kavali is whether the court below had power and on a plea being raised was bound to decide as to the rent being excessive or above the statutory maximum in a suit brought by the landlord for recovery of amounts due on promissory note, grain bond, and under other demands including the demand for agreed rent for the fasli year of 1369.

(2.) Admittedly the plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant a cultivating tenant. Whereas the case of the plaintiff was that the total area of acres 1-95 cents was leased out to the defendant on a fixed agreed rent of 1 putti 7 1/2 tooms, the contention of the defendant has been that only part of that area was leased out to him and the lease was on sharing system and not on any fixed agreed rent in kind. He further contended that in any event the plaintiff is not entitled to the alleged agreed rent as it is in excess of the maximum permissible under law. The learned Subordinate Judge, on the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, found in favour of the plaintiff that the lease was in relation to the holding, acres 1-95 cents in extent, and it was on maktha basis and not on sharing system: that the agreed rent was 1 putti 7 1/2 tooms, and the defendant was cultivating the land from the year 1956 was paying the said agreed rent in full without demur during all these years and that whenever he failed to pay it in full he executed a bond for the balance accepting his liability therefor and undertaking to pay the same on a future date. On the question whether the agreed rent was excessive or unfair and that in point of fact it was more than 50 p.c. of the gross produce of the land, the learned Subordinate Judge held that these are the matters to be agitated before the statutory authorities named in the Act and the civil courts are concerned only with the agreed rent as it is the rent payable under law unless varied by the Tahsildar in the prescribed manner. In this view of the matter and also having regard to the conduct of the parties all these years that they regarded it as the reasonable and legitimate rent payable, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendant was liable to pay agreed maktha of 1 putti 7 1/2 tooms for the fasli year 1369.

(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel, Mr. N. Subbareddi is that the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) being a beneficial Act should be construed liberally and leniently in favour of the tenants having regard to the avowed object of the Act. His second contention is that even though the tenant might not have approached the Tahsildar for fixation of fair rent for the holding, the civil court had power and jurisdiction to go into the question whether the agreed rent is in excess of the maximum rates fixed by the said Act and grant relief accordingly. He urges that the civil court's jurisdiction in this behalf is not circumscribed by any limitations and the court below had erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction.