DHULIPALLI SUBBARAO Vs. SIDDAPPA DHARMAKUNTA MUPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The defendant is the petitioner. The plaintiff-respondent is the Siddappa Dharmakunta, Muppavaram represented by its trustees. By a registered deed dated 4-8-1958 an extent of Ac. 3-14 cents of land was leased to the petitioner for a period of five years, the maktha stipulated being Rs. 340.00 per annum. Though the term of the lease was five years the tenancy continued by virtue of Section 10 (2) of the Andhra Tenancy Act, read with Act II of 1963 was, The maktha for the year 1962-1963 was, under the terms of the lease payable on 1-7-1962. But it was not so paid. On 17-4-1963 the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the arrears of maktha. The maktha was paid on 27-4-1963. Thereafter the respondent filed an application under Section 13 (a) of the Andhra Tenancy Act for terminating the tenancy and eviction of the petitioner. The application was contested by the petitioner and it underwent number of adjournments. On 2-4-1964 the petitioner surrendered possession to the respondent. The respondents application for eviction was also ordered on 24-5-1964 on the ground of default of payment of rent. The respondent filed SCS.No.201/1964 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole for recovery of damages for use and occupation during the agricultural year 1963-64 during which period the respondent alleged that the petitioner was in wrongful occupation of the land. The petitioner contested the suit stating that he had a right to continue as a cultivating tenant until evicted by process of law or until he surrendered the tenancy and that he was liable to pay maktha at the rate of Rs. 340.00 per annum only. He had paid that amount and he was to liable to pay anything more. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge held that the occupation of the petitioner was unlawful from the time when the landlords right to evict him sprang into existence and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to damages for use and occupation for the year 1963-64. The estimate of damages given by the plaintiff was accepted and the suit was decreed for that sum.

(2.) Mr. Rama Sarma for the petitioner contends that the occupation of the petitioner of the land during the pendency of the petition under S. 13 (a) of the Tenancy Act cannot be considered to be unlawful and that the order of eviction cannot date back to the date of filing of the application. He contends that the general law of landlord and tenant is abrogated by the Andhra Tenancy Act and that one must look to the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act only to discover the rights and liabilities of a tenant. On the other had Mr. Kodanda Ramaiah contends that the general law of landlord and tenant is not abrogated, that the Andhra Tenancy Act merely supplements the general law and that the lower court was right in holding that the possession of the petitioner was wrongful after the right to evict accrued to the petitioner.

(3.) The Andhra Tenancy Act was passed, as the preamble says, to provide for the payment of fair rent by cultivating tenants and for fixing the minimum period of agricultural leases, Section 3 fixes the maximum rent payable by a cultivating tenant. Section 6 provides for determination of fair rent notwithstanding any agreement between the landlord and the cultivating tenant. Section 8 provides for remission of rent consequent on total or partial failure of crop due to natural calamities, Section 10 provides for a minimum period of lease and Section 13 prescribes the conditions governing the determination of the tenancy and evicting of the cultivating tenant. Section 17 says that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any pre-existing law, custom, usage, agreement or decree or order of a Court. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the various provisions contained in it there can be little doubt that the Act is meant to prevent rackrenting and unreasonable eviction and the secure a fair deal to the tenant by way of fair rent and security of tenure. While on the one had the Act abridges the rights of the landlord under the general law, on the other it enlarges the rights of the tenant. It has made substantial inroads into the existing law of landlord and tenant. The question with which we are now concerned is whether under the Andhra Tenancy Act tenancy must be considered to continue until eviction or whether the tenancy must be considered to be determined when the right to evict accrues to the landlord. Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act which deals with the determination of leases of immoveable property runs as follows:-