U V B OPALRAO Vs. CHANDANA SUBBARAO RESPONEDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, made in ATA No. 147 of 1964 dated 16th August, 1S65. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is a Receiver appointed in O. S. No. 52 of 1959 by the sub-Court, Tenali. He was directed to take possession and auction the leasehold rights in the lands which were the subject-matter of the suit and to deposit the amount realised into the Court.

(2.) Previous to the petitioner, one Sri Ramadevarayalu, Advocate, was appointed as the Receiver He acutioned the leasehold rights in the suit properties for the year 1961-62. The 1st respondent was the highest bidder for 315 bags of paddy and Rs. 225 in cash. The 1st respondent was put in possession. He filed 1. A. No; 21 7 of 1962 in the suit contending that because of heavy and unprecedented rains, the crop, which he had raised, was damaged and therefore asked remission of 200 bags. The sub-Court, however, dismissed that application on the ground that the 1st respondent was not entitled to it.

(3.) For the year 1963-64. the 1st respondent was again the highest bidder fof 215 bags. He filed ATP No. 72 of 1373 Fasli before Special Deputy Tahsildar, Repalle under section 8 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, hereinafter called "the Act", claiming remission of the rent on the ground that there were heavy rains on aecount of which the crops, which he had raised, were seriously damaged. The Receiver opposed that application. His main contention was that he was only a receiver appointed by the Sub-Court and was not a landlord within the meaning of the Act. The Special Deputy Tahsildar rejected the contention of the Receiver and held that section 8 is applicable. Against that order of the Deputy Tahsildar, the petitioner preferred an appeal, ATA No. 147 of 1964 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali. The appeal also was dismissed on the same ground. It is this concurrent view of the two tribunals that is now assailed in this writ Petition on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant is not created between the receiver and the 1st respondent and section 8 consequently is not applicable. The Revenue Divisional Officer therefore has no jurisdiction to consider the application filed by the 1st respondent. For the year 1964.65, the 1st respondent again was declared as the highest bidder for 175 bage. After cultivating the land, he filed a similar application ATA No. 60 of 1374 Fasli before the Special Deputy Tahsildar under section 8 of the Act. For the year 1965-66, the leasehold rights on land were again auctioned.