KUPPALA KOTAIAH Vs. SRIPATI PANDITARADHYLULA KOTAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer passed against the petitioner in A. T. A. No. 198/58 and A. T. A. No. 191/58 are put in issue in these two writ petitions, the petitioner being the same in both.

(2.) The petitioner was a lessee of three acres of land from the 1st respondent He was inducted into possession thereof in the year 1956, inter alia, on the terms that he should pay a rent of 16 1/2 bags of paddy per acre. Before the rent for the current year fell due, the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came into force on 13th September, 1956. Taking advantage of this, the petitioner moved the Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Act for fixing fair rent. During the pendency of these proceedings, instead of depositing the agreed rent before the Tahsildar, he deposited only 30 bags of paddy. Ultimately, the Tahsildar fixed the fair rent at 11 bags of paddy per acre. Mean-while, the 1st respondent applied to the Tahsildar for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he had not deposited the agreed rent. The Tahsildar took the view that the deposit made by the petitioner complied with the terms of the statutory provision and that the 1st respondent was not entitled to evict the petitioner. In the result, he allowed the application of the petitioner for fixation of fair rent and dismissed that of the 1st respondent. The petitioner carried an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order of the Tahsildar fixing the rent at 11 bags, complaining that it was far in excess of the proportion contemplated by Section 3 of the Act. The 1st respondent, who was dissatisfied with the order of the Tahsildar in the eviction proceedings, filed an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar. The Revenue Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and accepted that of the 1st respondent being of the opinion that Section 7 envisaged the deposit of rent agreed to between the parties and not rent as determined by the Tahsildar under Section 6 and that, as he had failed to satisfy the requirement of Section 7, the petition for fixing fair rent should have been dismissed. In that view, also though that the 1st respondent was entitled to terminate the tenancy and evict his cultivating tenant by force of Section 13 of the Act, it may be mentioned here that the petitioner failed to deposit the rent that accrued subsequent to the filing of the petition. It was only in the year 1959 that he made the deposit pursuant to the orders of this Court in C. M. P. No. 10083 of 1958 arising in these writ petitions. The aggrieved tenant has filed these two writ petitions questioning the validity of the two orders.

(3.) The principal contention urged by Sri Kesava Rao is that the rent to be deposited was the one as fixed by the Tahsildar under Section 6 and that, in any event, the failure to comply strictly with that provision of law did not entail the dismissal of the application under Section 6 of the Act.