B CHENNAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. KARNATI RAMAKRISHNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Proddatur in OS SR No.704 of 1993 dated 7-6-1993 as confirmed by the Sub-Judge, Proddatur in AS No.6 of 1993 dated 16-12-1996 wherein the request of the appellants herein for amendment of the plaint by filing IA No.80 of 1995 was also turned down.

(2.) The question that arises for consideration in this appeal would be the right of a cultivating tenant over the land on which he was the tenant to purchase the same when the landlord intends to sell, under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') introduced by Section 12 of the Amendment Act 39 of 1974. The predecessor in title of the appellants before this Court was the cultivating tenant of the suit schedule land and some dispute seems to have arisen between the landlord and the tenant in the year 1988. Then, both the parties approached the Tenancy Court by filing applications-one by the father of the appellants herein fora declaration that he is the cultivating tenant and the other by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant from the land in question on the ground of default in payment of rent. While these applications are pending, the respondent herein i.e., the landlord seemed to have sold away the land to a third party under a registered sale deed dated 4-6-1988. In those circumstances, the father of the appellants filed another OP seeking a declaration that the sale in favour of a third party is a void one as the procedure prescribed under Section 15 of the Act was not followed. During the pendency of these petitions before the Tenancy Court, the father of the appellants died and the appellants got themselves impleaded in the TOPs. as legal representatives of late Chenna Reddy and continued the proceedings. The Tenancy Court while declaring that the appellants as the cultivating tenants and are entitled to continue in possession of the land, dismissed the petition filed by the land-lord holding that neither the appellants nor their predecessor in title committed any default in payment of rent and in the other petition on i.e., TOP No.11 of 1988, the Tenancy Court held that as the procedure prescribed in Section 15 of the Act was not followed, the sale is vitiated and declared the same as void ab initio. Having declared the sale in favour of the third parties as void, the Court refused to give a direction to the landlord to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants. In the appeal preferred by the landlord, the appellate Court while confirming the orders of the Tenancy Court observed that it is open to the appellants to work out their rights by way of a separate proceedings as the Tenancy Court cannot give a declaration sought for by the appellants herein. In those circumstances, the appellants filed OS SR 704 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Proddatur seeking a direction to the landlord to execute the sale deed in terms of Section 15 of the Act and the office has taken an objection as to how the suit is maintainable under Section 39-C of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees Act as there was no contract of sale between the parties. The Court, having heard the matter at length, passed orders upholding the objection raised by the office by its order dated 7-6-1993 and rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants herein filed AS No.6 of 1993 on the file of the Sub-Court, Proddatur. During the course of arguments, the appellants filed IA No.80 of 1995 seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint by adding the words "declaring that the plaintiffs were the persons legally entitled to purchase the suit land when the defendant intended to sell and sold the land to others on 4-6-1993". The appellate Court by its order dated 16-12-1996, while confirming the orders of the trial Court, dismissed the IA holding that the amendment cannot be permitted as the land was already sold and also on the ground that they cannot be legally entitled to compel the landlord to sell without following the procedure. As far as the rejection of the relief sought for in the plaint originally filed, I am in agreement with the reasons given by the Courts below and the said finding do not call for any interference by this Court.

(3.) Coming to the orders passed by the appellate Court in IA No.80 of 1995, the Sub-Judge committed an error in holding that the land was already sold forgetting the fact that the Tenancy Court itself in TOP No. 11 of 1988 declared the sale as void and that it cannot be given effect to. Likewise, there may not be any quarrel for the observation of the Sub-Judge that the tenant cannot legally compel the landlord to sell the land without following the procedure. But, the relief sought for by the appellants by way of amendment is only to the extent of a declaration that they are legally entitled to purchase the suit land as and when the landlord intends to sell. The declaration sought for is in conformity with Section 15 of the Tenancy Act and as such, the Court is not justified in dismissing the amendment petition. Hence, to the extent of dismissing the application, the judgment and decree of the appellate Court is set aside and the 1A is allowed. Consequently, the appellants are entitled to get a declaration from this Court that as and when the landlord intends to sell the land in occupation of the appellants herein, the Statute conferred a right on them to exercise the option to purchase the land in the teeth of the language employed in Section 15 of the Act. At this stage, the Counsel appearing for the landlord brings to my notice Clause (3) of Section 15 of the Act and contends that the appellants are entitled to purchase the land only when there is an agreement with regard to the price payable for the land. I have no hesitation to reject this contention of the Counsel for the respondent as Section 15 of the Act is a self-contained Code and it has taken all the precautions that are required to protect the interests of the tenant as well as the land-lord. If there is no agreement between the parties with regard to the price payable for the land in question, they can always approach the Court for fixation of fair price for the land and the proviso to Clause (3) of Section 15 of the Act has given the guidelines to the Court for fixing the price payable for the land. Hence, I do not see any reason for the apprehension of the landlord that he has to lose the land for a throw-away price. Accordingly, the contention of the Counsel for the respondent is rejected.