VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE TENNALI Vs. KAKUMARREE ANJANEYULU DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to revise the orders of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, made under Section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) refusing to evict the respondent as the cultivating tenant of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is Sri Venugopalaswami Vari temple, Tenali represented by the Managing Trustee. The said temple leased out some of its lands to the respondent Kakamanu Anjaneyulu with a stipulation of annual rent of 13 bags of paddy. The respondent had his own lands acres 50 in extent around this leased land, which he is in possession of ever since 1922. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st Respondent having disposed of his own lands to others, had sub-leased the temple land to Adusumalli Anjayya for higher rent. Besides he committed default in timely payment of rent for the year 1959-60 and paid the same on 15-2-1960 long after the expiry of the due date. The petitioner sought on these grounds termination of his tenancy and his eviction from the leased lands by making an application under Section 13 of the Act to the Tahsildar. He made Anjayya, the sub-lessee a party respondent who denied that he ever sub-leased the land or committed default in payment of rent. His contention was that ever since the present Managing Trustee took charge, he was demanding higher rent and on his refusal he made attempts to sell the lease-hold rights in the lands by public auction. As he failed to gain his object by reason of timely intervention of the 1st respondent he now conceived the idea of eviction by filling an application under Section 13. The 2nd Respondent denied that he was a sub-lessee.

(3.) The Tahsildar on the material brought on record which consisted of evidence both oral and documentary found that the grounds on which eviction was sought are ill-founded, that the lands were being cultivated under the supervision of the lessee, that the allegation of sub-lease is untrue, and the oral evidence in support thereof is unworthy of credence and that the petitioner has failed to establish default on part of the lessee in payment of rent. He was of the view that the stipulation as to the date of payment is not at all proved, that the receipt Ext. R-1 in relation to rent payable for the year 1959-60 which shows that the rent was accepted under protest without prejudice to the temples contention for fixation of higher rent does not show that the rent was paid after the due date. The Tahsildar having thus found that the petitioner had failed to establish both the sub-lease and default as alleged by him dismissed his petition. On appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer, was inclined to the view that the lease was a permanent lease, l that the alleged sub-lease has not been established inasmuch as P. Ws. 4 and 5 denied all knowledge about it and there was conflict between the testimony of P. W. 1 on one hand and P. Ws. 2 and 3 on the other, in relation to the term of sub-lease and that the default in payment has not been proved. He found that the usual date of payment of rent in that area was Magha Bahula Amavasya that the rent for the year 1959-60 was paid earlier on 15-2-1960 itself and that according to P. W. 5 this rent was to be paid by Radhotsavam which fell on 13-3-1960, and further the previous years receipts of 15-4-1954 and 17-4-1935 (sic) showed that the amount used to be paid as per the arrangements in the months of April from time to time, and that as against this, the petitioner did not produce the accounts of the temple to rebut the stand taken by the first respondent. In this view he upheld the order of the Tahsildar.