VEGI RAMASAMI Vs. PENIMATSA ANANDRAZU GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the tenant contends (a) that the patta is not a proper patta, and (b) that he is not the tenant and cannot be compelled to take a patta or execute a muchilika.

(2.) He says the patta is not a proper patta for three reasons. First because it contains a clause which precludes his cutting down fruit trees, second, because the patta contains a clause that after the patta terminates the tenant shall not cultivate the land until he has accepted a patta and executed a muchilika for the ensuing Fusli and thirdly, because the landlord has charged enhanced rates for the land. As regards the last, I am of opinion that on a revision petition such as this, I am precluded from going into the question because it is found as a fact that the enhancement is in accordance with a special agreement made between the landlord and the tenants, in which case it is perfectly legal. As regards the first objection, I am of opinion that the clause is not objectionable as it is confined entirely to fruit trees. It is proper for the protection of the landlord from any act of deliberate waste on the part of a malicious tenant who otherwise might cut down all the fruit trees and then surrender the land, and it is not a hardship upon, or injurious to, the tenant as the preservation of fruit trees is distinctly to his benefit as long as they are alive. There is nothing to prevent fruit trees that have died or ceased to bear, being cut down with the consent of the landlord for the purpose of being replaced by other fruit trees. As regards the second objection, I think the clause is harmless. It is entirely useless and cannot be enforced as the patta applies only to the current year and cannot affect the rights of the parties in ensuing years. I think it should be struck out, but I do not think the insertion of it makes the patta bad. For these reasons, I hold that the tenant's objections to the patta cannot be sustained.

(3.) There remains only the question (b) that the petitioner is not the tenant in fact and cannot be compelled to take a patta because he has sold his land and another person is in possession of it as tenant. This objection was taken in the written statement and evidence was given to prove it. It is, however, contended on behalf of the landlord that a person who has, been a tenant remains the tenant until his tenancy is properly determined and until this occurs, the landlord is entitled to insist that he is the person to whom a patta should be tendered and by whom a muchilika must be executed. By Section 12 of the Rent Recovery Act, the tenant can only surrender his holding in the manner there indicated, and unless this course is adopted by him he remains the tenant, unless it is proved that the landlord has expressly or impliedly agreed to accept another person as his tenant in the place of the original tenant. I think this contention is sound and as it is hot/ found or in fact proved that the original tenant has surrendered the land in the manner laid down in Section 12 of the Act or that the landlord has expressly or impliedly accepted another person as his tenant in place of the petitioner. I hold that this objection as well as the objections to the patta are not sustainable. I, therefore, dismiss the petition with costs.