D N B ANNADANA SATRAM Vs. K YAKOBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Institution is the landlord and the first respondent is the cultivating tenant. For the year 1981, the respondent filed an application on November 10, 1981, under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956), for short, "the Act" and got a Commissioner appointed on the same day. The Commissioner inspected the lands on November 11, 1981 at about 12-30 p.m. and found that the entire extent of Ac. 8-19 cents of land consists of six small bits and two big bits. The crops in the small bits were completely damaged; in the big bits, by apparent outside look there appears to be no damage but when he went interior to the land and inspected, he found the crop damaged by attack of mosquitoes. He selected half a cent of land in each of the six bits where there is some crop and equally selected half a cent of land where there is no crop at all. He got cut the crop from the selected places and got it harvested. On weighing, 2 Kgs 250 grams of paddy was got from the former places and 50 grams fom, the latter places. On that test basis, he concluded that the total yield that would fetch is 3 bags 5 kgs per acre. Based on this report and evidence adduced by both parties, both the Tribunals have concurrently found that there was wide spread mosquito menace, as a result, there was total failure of crop and the respondent is entitled to remission under Section 8 of the Act. But the primary authority dismissed the application on the ground that 15 days notice required under Section 8 was not given to the petitioner before cutting the crop and thereby the respondent has committed statutory violation of Section 8. On appeal, the appellate authority found that the application was made on November 10, 1981 and on the same day it was sent to the petitioner by Registered Post which was received by the petitioner on November 16, 1981 i.e., within fifteen days. The Advocite-Commissioner appointed on November 10, 1981 inspected the lands on November 11, 1981 and submitted his report ; subsequently the Executive Officer and the Managing Trustee inspected the lands. Though strictly 15 days notice before cutting the crop is not complied with, there was "a substantial compliance." As a result, there was no statutory violation and on that premise allowed the petition and granted remission. Assailing the legality of the appellate order, the writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Sri Suryanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner firstlycontends that the respondent has committed breach of mandatory requirement of giving 15 days notice as required under Section 8 before harvesting the crop and there by the respondent is not entitled to the remission. I find no force in the contention. It is true that the primary authority has held that the landlord should be given 15 days notice. The object of giving 15 days notice under the Act is to enable the landlord to verify the extent of damageeither total or partial caused to the crop due to widespread calamities.

(3.) Section 8 accords substantive right to remission of rent to a cultivatingtenant due to failure of cropstotal or partial, in any year due to "wide-spread calamities, such as cyclone, drought or floods." It also envisages procedural fairness for compliance thereof ; (i) the cultivating tenant shall make an application for remission ; (ii) the Tribunal is empowered "after making an enquiry in the prescribed manner" to order remission of such rent as may consider "just in the circumstances of the case" ; (iii) every such application shall be made at least 15 days before the crop is cut and removed" ; and (iv) a copy of such application shall also be served on the landlord by the cultivating tenant. (The explanation is not necessary. Hence omitted). Rule 9 of the Andhra Tenancy Rules, 1957 provides that a copy of every application for remission of rent under Section 8 shall be served on the landlord "in person or by sending it by Registered Post, Acknowledgment Due." Exercise of power by the Special Officer to grant remission if he finds it justified, cuts into the contractual obligation of the cultivating tenant paying the rent in kind or cash. So the procedure provided intends to be statutory safeguard to subserve fairness to both cultivating tenant and the landlord. So, the procedure postulated that before cutting and harvesting the crop alleged to have been failed, either partially or totally, due to widespread calamaties an application shall be made at least 15 days before the crop is cut and removed. A copy thereof shall be served on the landlord either in person or by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due. What is important is service of the application on the landlord within 15 days before the crop is cut and removed. In Veerabhadrudu vs. Bavaji Mutl a Division Bench has held that Section 8 confers a benefit on the cultivating tenant by permitting him to make an application for remission. It also seeks to safeguard the landlord's interest against false or exaggerated claim for remission. This could be prevented by tendering a copy rf the application to the landlord before harvesting the crop. The application should be served at least 15 days before the crop is cut and removed. In that case, the crop was cut and removed even before the landlord verified. Under those circumstances, the Division Bench has negatived the relief. I respectfully follow the ratio. The object of the Act and the ratio is to see that the landlord is given an opportunity to verify whether the crop is actually damaged and if so whether total or partial, due to widespread calamaties so that he could place his version of the case before the Tribunal. That could be done only if a notice is served on him before the crop is cut and removed. Fifteen days time mentioned under Section 8 is only an outer limit so as to enable the landlord to make inspection of the crop and find whether the allegations made by the tenant of the failure of the croptotal or partial, is really genuine or is only a false one or an exaggerated one and if not what is the actual extent of loss that was caused, so that the landlord himself would make a reasonable assessment of the damage to the crop. As seen in this case, an officer of the Court viz , an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed on the same day of filing of the application i.e., November 10, 1981 and the Commissioner inspected the land on the next day i.e., November 11, 1981 and conducted the test. Thereafter, the petitioner's Executive Officer and Trustee inspected the crop. The Commissioner gave evidence as a witness. His report is accepted by the Special Officer (District Munsif). No objections were filed to the correctness of the report. The word "at least" makes the legislative animation manifest. Obviously instead of allowing the remaining standing crop to get further damaged, before the expiry of 15 days, the standing crop must have been cut and harvested. It is common knowledge to every one having knowledge of agricultural cultivation, that even a day's delay in cutting the crop infested with mosquiteos would mean further damage. The positive fact is that cutting the crop as early as possible would mean saving as much as possible. Angulated from this realistic perspective I hold that though there is a statutory non-compliance, there is