GUNNAM SUBBARAJU Vs. K SARVESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of Land Acquisition Proceedings determining the rival claims between the parties. The land in question was acquired under the Notification dated 20-6-1976. Initially an amount of Rs. 22,096.10 was deposited towards the first instalment of compansation. The claimants 1 to 6 represent the landlord and claimant No. 7 is the tenant. Among the claimants 1 to 6, they have admitted the claim of the first respondent who was examined as RW-1 and hence the question is what shall be the proportion in which the compensation to be divided between respondents 1 and 7 who were examined as R.Ws. 1 and 3. The court below held that the 7th respondent who was only a tenant for one year in 1964, and by the date of the notification there is no unexpired portion of lease and hence the 7th respondent is not entitled to be in possession of the property and following the judgment in District Deputy Collector Vs Mansangi (1) AIR 1928 Bombay, 306, which held that when the tenancy is determined by notice or afflux of time, the tenant cannot claim compensation on acquisition of the land, rejected the claim of the 7th respondent in to to and upheld the claim of the first respondent exclusively for the amount in question. Hence the appeal by the 7th respondent.

(2.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal that the 7th respondent is a statutory tenant governed by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (Act No XVIII of 1956) as amended by Act 39 of 1974 and there is a fixed tenancy and his rights are heritable and transferable and he is entitled to purchase the property compulsorily from the landlord and hence he is entitled to substantial portion of compensation not less then 75% of the amount. This is refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent Sri M.S.K. Sastry stating that the lease in favour of the 7th respondent has expired and he admittedly committed default in payment of the rent and the decree was obtained against him in O.S.No. 588 of 1971 and the dues are not paid and when he is admittedly in default in payment of rent he has forfeited the right to continue in possession of the property and the application for eviction in T.A No14 of 1970 and 10 of 1975 are pending and hencs he is not entitled to any compensation.

(3.) Before determining the question raised in this appeal. I must make one thing clear. The contention of the respondent that in view of the default of the tenant in paying the rent and not paying the decretal amount is not entitled to share the compensation is not correct. The liability to pay the arrears till the notification and the liability to the decretal debt will not be effected by this judgment. Further the mere fact that eviction proceedings are pending, is not relevant so long the tenant continues to be in possession and he was not dispossessed by order of court.