Decided on September 06,1963



Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against an order of the Revenue Divi- sional Officer, Eluru, given on 2 4/09/1958. The action which leads up to this petition was instituted by the petitioner before the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tanuku under Section 13 of the Andhra Tenancy Act. It was alleged inter alia in the petition that the petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is a tenant The respondent executed a permanent muchilika in favour of the petitioner on 12-4-1920 after paying a nazarana of Rs. 540.00. According to the terms of the said muchilika the respondent was to pay th8 petitioner a rent of Rs. 60 on 30th Palgunam every year. It was provided that if the tenant commits default in paying the rent for four years, the lease is liable to be determined. As the respondent failed to pay the rent for four years, the landlord determined the lease and filed an application under Section 13 for eviction.
(2.) The defence raised by the tenant was that the lands ere situated in the Mokhasa village Tadepalligudem which is an inam village under the Madras Estates Land Act, that the lands in question are ryoti lands and that the respondent on account of his possession has the permanent occupancy rights. It was also stated that as the petitioner is mot a landlord within the meaning of the Andhra Ten-ancy Act, he cannot file any petition for eviction. It was further stated that the Madras Rent Reduction Act having been made applicable to Tadepalligudem, the rent of the lands in question also was consequently reduced and that the petitioner has collected excess rent over the rent now notified by the Government and that there is therefore no question of any default. The respondent also disputed that validity of a clause authorising the landlord to determine the lease on failure to pay four years rent by the tenant. As the respondent was competent to sell or alienate the land permanently leased out to him, he has not only partitioned the lands between them both but sold a portion of it with the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner was collecting rent from the alienees and other persons in whose favour the land was partitioned. He cannot therefore claim the entire rent from the respondent, nor is the respondent liable to vacate the land.
(3.) After examining the petitioner who was the sole witness on behalf of the petitioner, the Deputy Tahsildar dismissed the petition. He held that the clause in Ex. P-1 (a) is inconsistent and militates with the right conferred on the respondent to disposa of the land and the issue of permanent patta as contemplated in the said deed. Even if the tenant therefore commits any default in payment of rent for four years, the clause being penal cannot be given any effect to. The Deputy Tahsildar also held that the petitioner is not a landlord within the meaning of the Andhra Tenancy Act. He also adverted to the fact that the Rent Reduction Act was applied to the said village. He stated that the landholder has no right to collect rent from the tenants. The Deputy Tahsildar found that al-though some decrees have been obtained by the petitioner against the respondent, but they were obtained when the respondent was ill. Consequently he dismissed the peti-tion. The petitioner therefore went in appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.