K JAMPAREDDI Vs. Y KRISHNAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in A.S.No. 500 of 1977 filed a suit, O.S.No. 321 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada for eviction against the respondent. The plaintiff's case was that the father of the defenadant was a tenant of the plaintiff's vendors and continued to be a tenant under the plaintiff Ht died on 8-3-1971 leaving a will dated 2-9-1970 where by he bequeathed his right as a cultivating tenant in respect of the suit lands to one of his sons, the defendant. The defendant or any of the others heirs of the deceased tec ant did not exercise their option of continuing the tenancy as required under Sec. 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andbra Area) Tenancy Act (referred to shortly in this judgement as 'the Tenancy Act'). The plaintiff therefore became entitled to possession of the land. He, filed A.T. P.No. IS of 1971 on the file of the Tahsildar, Gannavaram, against the defendant and his two brothers for eviction. They contended that it was only the defendant that had the right to cultivate the lands by reason of the will executed by the father and the other two sons had nothing to do with the lands in question. The Tahsildar held that the defendant bad not exercised his option under Section 12 of the Tenancy Act and was, therefore, in law, a trespasser. As there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, he directed the plaintiff to seek his remedy in a civil Court. An appeal as against this order was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, and a further revision petition to this Court was also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for eviction which has given rise to this appeal.

(2.) In this suit, the defendant contended that he had exercised his option by giving a notice in writing and in support of that contention, he relied upon a Money Order coupon, Ex. B7 dated 30-3-1971 whereunder he sent Rs. 200/- to the plaintiff, In this Money Order coupon, the defendant wrote that he had acquired the tenancy rights under a will executed by bis father and that he was sending the rent due for the year 1970-71.

(3.) It was contended by the plaintiff before the Subordinate Judge that the Money Order coupon, Ex. B. 7 was not genuine. Even if it was true it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 12 of the Tenancy Act and it could not be said to be a notice in writing exercising an option to continue the tenancy for the unexpired portion of the lease on the same terms and conditions on which the deceased cultivating tenant was holding within the meaning of Section 12. It was further contended that the Money Order was refused and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was aware of the notice in writing if, in law, the Money Order amounted to such a notice. The learned Subordinate Judge held, after discussing the evidence, that the defendant exercised his option to continue as tenant as required by Section 12 of the Tenancy Act and was, therefore, entitled to continue as tenant. He held that the writing in the Money Order coupon amounted to a notice in writing within the meaning of Section 12 and that the plaintiff noted the contents when it was shown to him by the Branch Post-Master before he refused to accept the Money Order. In the result, he held that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession. The plaintiff had also claimed damages for use and occupation for the years 1971-72 to 1973-74. The Court below held that he would be entitled to rent on its finding that the defendant continued as a tenant. But the Court below found that he would be entitled to Rs. 750/- per year. In this connection, it may also be noted that the Court below described the amount of Rs. 750/- as mesne profits while holding that the defendant was continuing as a tenant.