B NAGESWARA RAO Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE WEST GODAVARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In A.T.C. No.113/81 filed by respondent No.3 the Court of the Special Officer (Tenancy) and Principal District Munsiff, Tanuku passed an order of eviction against the writ petitioner which has been challenged by way of this writ petition. The writ petition came to be heard by a single Judge of this Court on 7th December, 1989. A Division Bench Judgment reported in Raghavarah vs. Rajagopalaswamy Temple was pressed into service before the learned single fudge who found himself not in agreement with the law laid down by the Division Bench and therefore he placed the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. Therefore this Bench was constituted and in this background the case was heard by this Full Bench.

(2.) The facts reveal that the respondent temple is the owner of a piece of land measuring Ac.4-60 cents in R.S. No.69 situated in Kothalaparru village. In the auction held on 3rd May, 1972 the writ petitioner was the highest bidder for getting lease hold rights for Faslies 1382 to 1387. He gaveabidfor cultivating the schedule land for payment of annual rent of 62 bags of paddy payable by 31st January every year. The auction had been confirmed and approved by the Commissioner vide his order dated 28th June, 1972. After the expiry of the lease period i.e., by end of 1387 fasli, the writ petitioner continued to cultivate the land under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act on the same terms and conditions. He however did not execute any fresh lease deed and also did not pay any rent. He fell in arrears of 31 bags of paddy for Fasli 1389. It was the case of the temple that in spite of repeated demands he did not pay the rent and therefore eviction proceedings were sought on the ground of default in payment of rent. Before the learned District Munsif the tenant who is the present writ petitioner admitted his tenancy but denied that he defaulted in the payment of rents. Evidence was taken and on the basis of the evidence the learned District Munsiff came to the conclusion that the tenant-writ petitioner had made defaults; therefore he ordered eviction.

(3.) When the matter came before the Court of learned single Judge, it was argued before him that no eviction could have been ordered as there was no agreed rent between the parties and in the absence of an agreement with regard to the rent, the petitioner tenant had to pay only the fair rent. Since the fair rent has not been fixed, he was obliged only to pay the maximum rent. Since this aspect had not been dealt with by the Trial Court, therefore the petitioner was not subject to any eviction. This argument was made on the basis of law laid down in Raghauaiah vs. Rajagopalaswamy Temple (1 supra). After referring to certain relevant sections of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act the learned single Judge found that he could not persuade himself to be in line with the judgment of Division Bench and referred the matter.