KALLAM JAMPAREDDI Vs. YARAVA KRISHNAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree in 0. S. No.321/74 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. The appellant in A. S. No. 500/77 filed the said suit for eviction against the respondent and for possession of the plaint schedule property. He also claimed damages for use and occupation, pastand future at the rate of Rs. 1,400/- per year per acre.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac. 2-57 cents in the village of Peda Vegirala from Jandhyala Ramakrishnasastry and his wife under a registered sale deed dated 6-2-1969. The land had been given on lease by the vendors to Kutumbareddi, father of the defendant, and he was in possession as a tenant on the date of sale in favour of the plaintiff Kutumbareddi continued as the tenant of the plaintiff. He died on 8-3-1971 leaving a will dated 2-9-1970 by which he bequeathed his rights as a tenant in favour of the defendant, who is one of his sons. The plaintiff's case was that the widow and the lineal heirs of Kutumbareddi including the defendant did not exercise their option of continuing as tenants under the plaintiff on the same terms and conditions of the lease in favour of their father and the defendant's father had also committed default in payment of rent. The plaintiff therefore filed an eviction petition under the Andhra Tenancy Act against the defendant and his two brothers. Before the Tenancy Tahsildar, the defendant's brothers disclaimed any interest in the suit land. The Tenancy Tahsildar held that the defendant did not exercise his option to continue as a tenant under Section 12 of the Andhra Tenancy Act. He therefore came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and the remedy of the plaintiff was to seek redress in a Civil Court. The defendant preferred an appeaj to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid,which was dismissed and a further Revision Petition to this Court in C.R.P. No. 2435/72 was also dismissed on 19-3-1974. The Plaintiff thereupon filed the present suit contending that defendant is a trespasser and he had no right to continue in possession of the plaint schedule property. He prayed for a decree for possession and also claimed mesne profits at Rs. 1400/- per year per acre for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74, and also future mesne protifs at the same rate.

(3.) The defendant contended inter alia that after the death of his father he was a tenant under the plaintiff and he was entitled to continue as a tenant. It was not correct to state that the defendant and his brothers did not exercise their option to continue as tenants under Section 12 of the Andhra Tenancy Act. The defendant sent a Money Order on 30-3-1971 to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 200/- payable for fasli 1380, but the plaintiff wilfully refused to receive the same. In the circumstances the defendant cannot be treated as a trespasser, but should be regarded as a cultivating tenant and the suit for eviction is not maintainable. Regarding the claim for mesne profits he submitted that the plaintiff was entitled only to rent which was Rs. 200/- per year.