KANTHETI SESHARATNAMMA Vs. AKKINENI SATYANARAYANA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Chandra Reddy, C.J. -
(1.) The only question that is raised in this appeal is whether
a permanent lessor fulfils the definition of a ' landlcrd ' within the connotation
of section 2 (f) of the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The appellant granted a permanent lease of the lands in dispute to one
A.Suryanarayana on a rental of one hundred bags a year. Subsequently, the lessee
transferred his lease-hold rights in the demised land in favour of respondents 1
and 2. We are unconcerned with what transpired between the date of the original
lease and the date of this petition. Suffice it to say that, as the transferee-lessees
committed default in the payment of rent for the years 1956 and 1957, the appellant
invoked sectioA 13 of the Act for evicting the tenants, the permanent lessees.
In spite of the opposition of the lessees, the Tahsildar, Bandar, before whom
the application was filed, ordered their eviction in the view that failure to pay the
rent due by them within a period of one month from the date stipulated in the
lease-deed entitled the appellant to an order for eviction.
(2.) On appeal carried by the aggrieved lessees, the order of eviction passed by
the Tahsildar was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar.
It is to quash the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the appellant
presented a petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although
several contentions were urged before our learned brother, Jaganmohan Reddy, J.,
the only one pertinent for the purpose of this enquiry is whether a permanent lesser
in the position of the appellant is a ' landlord ' within the mischief of section 2(f)
of the Act. Our learned brother answered it in the negative with the result that
the writ petition was dismissed.
(3.) It is this view of our learned brother that is canvassed before us in this appeal
preferred by the lessor.
As the controversy arising in the appeal revolves round section 2 (f) which
defines ' landlord ', and section 13 which clothes the landlord with certain rights,
it is useful to extract them here.
"Section 2 (f) : ' Landlord' means the owner of a holding or part thereof who is entitled to
evict the cultivating tenant from such holding or part, and includes the heirs, assignees,
legal representatives of such owner, or person deriving rights through him";
Section 13, in so far as it is of immediate relevancy, runs thus :
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 10, 11 and 12, no landlord shall be
entitled to terminate the tenancy and evict his cultivating tenant during the currency of
a lease except by an application made in that behalf to the Tahsildar, and unless such
cultivating tenant -
(a) has failed to pay the rent due by him within a period of one month from the date stipulated
in the lease-deed, or in the absence of such stipulation, within a period of one month from
the date on which the rent is due according to the usage of the locality ;
and in case the rent is payable in the form of a share in the produce, has failed to
deliver the produce at the time of harvest ; or,";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.