PEKETI THAMMIRAJU Vs. KASIREDDY PENTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the Order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, dated 17th June, 1957, in Tenancy Appeal No. 3 of 1957 evicting the lessees under the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956), hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'. On a construction of the terms of section 11 of the Act, both the Deputy Tahsildar, Pithapuram and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapuram, held that the tenant was liable to be evicted. As against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the writ petition has been filed before this Court.

(2.) The simple question for consideration in the writ is whether the tenant is not liable to be evicted on the expiry of the period fixed under the lease. Sri Kondapi, the learned advocate for the petitioner, strongly relied on the terms of section 10(2) " of the Act and contended that his client was entitled to continue in possession upto 1st June, 1959. Section 10(2) is in the following terms :

(3.) It is common ground that the lease in question expired on 1st April, 1957. According to the petitioner, though the lease had expired on 1st April, 1957, as per the terms of section 10(2), he was entitled to continue in possession till 1st June, 1959. I am not inclined to accept this contention as section 11 will have to be read in conjunction with the terms of section 10(2). As the transfer was effected on 4th August, 1956, during the currency of the lease, the terms of section 11 apply. The object of section 11 appears to be to protect genuine transfers effected during the currency of the lease. When such transfers are effected, the tenants are not entitled to contend that they are entitled to the benefit conferred by section 10(2) and continue in possession upto ist June, 1959. If Sri Kondapi's contention is correct, the terms of section 11 would have been different. Section 11 clearly uses the words " during the currency of a lease " and does not contain the words "or upto or before 1st June, 1959". In the circumstances, I find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner. The writ fails and is consequently dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 50.00. Petition dismissed.