AMEENA BEE Vs. RAGHAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short quastion that arises for consideration in this revision petition under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant Without the tenancy being terminated by the landholder after giving a notice not tess than 6 months as required by the proviso to clause (2) of Section 19 of the Act. In my view, the Tahsildar. has no such jurisdiction. A reading of Sections 19 and 28 of the Act clearly indicates that the only mode in which a tenancy can be terminated is by giving a notice of not less than 6 months by the landholder. After the termination of the tenancy, the land holder has to file an application for ejectment and under Section 28(1) of the Act, the Tahsildar shall give 90 days time to the tenant for payment of rent. If the tenant fails to pay the rent within the time, an Order of ejectment can be passed. Section 28(2) of the Act contemplates an application being filed by the land-holder for arrears of recovery of rent and the Tahsildar may pass such order as be thinks fit. In an application under this section, the Tansildar has no power to order eviction. The words ''may pass such order as he deems fit" used in Section 28(2) of the Act do not enable the Tahsildar to pass an order of eviction which is a distinct relief by itself. It can only mean that the Tahsildar can give a decree for arrears of rent or pass any other order which is incidental thereto. A similar view is taken by a single Judge of this Court in Noor Jehan Begum vs. Sayanna. But my attention was drawn to two other decisions in Mohd. Ikramuddin vs. Mohd Ismail and in C.R.P. Nos. 456, 457 and 458 of 1973 dated 22-2-1974 where in a contrary view is expressed. In these decisions, it was held that though there is no termination of tenancy as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act, the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to order eviction in a petition under Section 28(2) of the Act for recovery of arrears of rent and the words "such order as he deems fit" used in Section 28(2) of the Act are of wide import. With respect I am unable to agree with the view expressed in these two decisions. If such a construction is placed, it will defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is designed to further interests :of me tenants, and the provisions of Sections 19 arid 28(1) of the Act are rendered nugatory. The proviso introduced in Section 28 by the amended Act of 1954 is really in the nature of a proviso to Section 28(1). As there is ho conflict of views and I am unable to agree with the view taken in the latter two decision I feel that the matter should be decided by a Bench. The matter may be posted before a Division Bench. This Civil Revision Petition coming onnor nearing on Monday the nineteenth January, 1987, before the Division Bench the Court made the following : Amareswari, J., referred this revision for consideration by a Division Bench in view of a conflict of decisions on the point by two learned single Judges of this court. The question referred for consideration is whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ("the Act" for short) without the tenancy being terminated by the land-holder after giving a notice of not less than six months as required by the proviso to Clause (2) of Section 19 of the Act.

(2.) The facts : The petitioners are the land-lords of land admeasuring 5-23 acres situate in S.No. 45 in Mirzapur village. The respondent is the tenant in respect of that land. The rent payable by the respondent for the years 1954-55 to 1975-76 fell into arrears. The petitioners filed an application before the Tahsildar, Bodhan under Section 23 of the Act for recovery of the arrear rent from the respondent from the land under his occupation. On 28-6-76 the Tahsildar, passed an order directing the respondent to pay the arrear rent of Rs. 1,943-70 within ninety-days. The respondent failed to pay the arrearrent within the time allowed. It is, however, admitted that the arrear rent was paid after the expiry of ninety days fixed by the Tahsildar. On the ground that there was failure on the part of the respondent to pay the arrear rent within the time allowed, the petitioners filed an application before the Tahsildar for evicting the respondent from the land. On 17-7-78 the Tahsildar allowed the petitioners' application and directed eviction of the respondent-tenant.

(3.) Against the order of the Tahsildar dated 17-7-78 directing eviction the respondent filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Nizamabad. On 26-6-79 the Joint Collector allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the Tahsildar directing eviction on two grounds. It was first held that on the day when the petitioners applied to the Tahsildar for ordering eviction the rent was already paid by the respondent and hence, there could not be any action against the respondent after the rent had been paid. The second ground was that there was no valid termination of tenancy and without the termination of tenancy eviction of the respondent could not have been ordered. It is against the order of the Joint Collector dated 26-6-79 that the petitioners filed the present revision petition.