ROSHAN ALI KHAN AND OTHERS Vs. RAJA KISHENDAS AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Roshan Ali Khan And Others
Raja Kishendas And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) These are three applications, Application No. 276/61 filed by Roshan Alt Khan, Application No. 48/62 by the 1st defendant and Application No. 156/62 by the Receivers, all relating to Survey No. 3, called Moosaram Bagh with a building thereon surrounded by a compound wall situated within the local Municipal limits of the City of Hyderabad.[x x x Introductory Facts Omitted.]
(2.) The only other point that may require determination is whether the lands in dispute are governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (21 of 1950) which came into force on 10-6-1950. This Act having regard provision into the sub clause (2) of section 1, no doubt extends to the whole of Hyderabad area of the State of Andhra Pradesh, but section 102 makes it inapplicable to certain Inams or other lands. It makes it inapplicable even to certain areas which the Government may from time to time exclude from its operation by notification in the Jarida specifying it as being reserved for urban, non-agricultural or industrial development. The question is whether the land in dispute is situate in such an area. Otherwise it is clear that the provisions of Act 21 of 1950 would apply. The other thing that has also to be considered is whether the petitioner can take advantage of this Act;
(3.) From the above discussion it is clear that the petitioner is a tenant or a protected tenant within the meaning of the Act; "Tenant" under section 2 (v) of the Act, means an asami shikmi who holds land on lease and includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under the provisions of the Act. "Asami shikmi" as provided in sub-clause (13) of section 2 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act means a lessee, whether holding under an instrument or under an oral agreement and includes a mortgagee of an asami shikmi's rights with possession, but does include a lessee holding directly under Government. The material on record does establish that there has been any agreement of tenancy between the petitioner and the Receivers or the previous holder, Whereas section 7 permits execution of certain leases with certain conditions, section 9 clearly states that every lease made under section 7 or 8 shall be in writing and the landholder shall and the tenant may file a copy thereof in the office of the Tahsildar within 30 days of the date on which the lease is executed. This has been done. In fact no, lease deed was brought into existence. He is therefore, a tenant by express agreement. He is also a person who can be deemed to be a tenant. For this we have to look to section 5 of the Tenancy Act, which says as follows:-
"A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person shall be deemed to be tenant if such land is cultivated personally by the landholder and if such person is not
(a) X X
(b) XX XX
(c) a mortgagee in possession;
Provided that if upon an application made by the landholder within one year from the commencement of this Act to the Tahsildar within whose jurisdiction the land is situate.
(a) The Tahsildar declares that such person is a tenant and his decision is reversed on appeal or revision, or
(b) The Tahsildar refuses to make such declaration but his decision is reversed on appeal or revision,
such person shall be deemed to be a tenant.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.