R RANGA RAO Vs. ANNAPURNA SATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions of law and fact arise in all the writ petitions. Hence they are disposed of by a common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of these cases, the facts in W.P. No. 17009/84 may be stated. The petitioner is a tenant. An application under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Ardhra Area) Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956), for short, "the Act" has been filed for his ejectment for his failure to pay the rents for the years 1P75-76, 1976-77 and 1978-79. The defence taken by the petitioner-tenant is that there was failure of crop due to cyclone, as a result he could pay the rent for the year 1977-78: he paid the rents partly for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 and thereby he could not pay the rents within the time. The Special Officer, on adduction of evidence and consideration thereof, found that the petitioner has committed default in payment of the rents for three years and accordingly ordered his ejectment. On appeal, it was confirmed. Against that order, the writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Shri Dharma Rao learned counsel for the Petitioners has strenuously contended that unless the fair rent under Section 6 of the Act is determined, the liability to pay the rent does not arise. He places reliance on Raghavaiah vs. Rajagopalaswamy Temple. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act ? It is now an admitted fact that the lease was of a total extent of Ac. 2-75 cents and the total rent payable was 41 bags 20 K. Gs. of paddy. It is also admitted that no application was filed under Section 6 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. So long as the fair rent has not been determined, the agreed rent would be the rent as provided under Sec. 3 of the Act. In view of this admitted fact that no application was filed for fixation of fair rent, the statutory animation is that the agreed rent would continue to bind the parties. Admittedly the petitioner committed default in payment of rent for 1977-78 and he did not completely pay the rent for 1975-76 and 1976-77. Under those circumstances, the finding recorded by the Tribunals below that the petitioner has committed default is a finding of fact. This Court, Raghavaiah's case (1 supra) has directed the primary Tribunal to determine the fair rent and then decide what is the rent due and payable. Though it is not clear from the judgment whether any application has been made under Section 6 or/and the application was pending and without disposing of that, eviction was ordered under Section 16, in view of the statutory animation that so long as no application has been filed for fixation of fair rent, the agreed rent would be the rent operating between the parties, the Division Bench in the aforesaid case appears to have taken that there must be an application pending before the Tribunal and without disposing of that application eviction was ordered. In that view, the above direction appears to have been given. On the facts and circumstances of this case, the ratio laid down therein does not apply to this case. The learned Judges, with all due respect did not intend to lay down a law that even without filing an application for fixation of fair rent, it is the duty of the Court to first determine the fair rent and then decide the question whether the tenant has committed default in payment of rent. Under those circumstances, I hold that on the admitted factum of committing default in payment of rent, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting interference with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Tribunals that the petitioner committed default.

(3.) The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are directed to handover possession of the lands after the standing crops, if any, are harvested. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 350/- in each.