KANTHETI SESHARATNAMMA Vs. AKKINENI SATYANARAYANA
LAWS(APH)-1963-1-8
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 30,1963

KANTHETI SESHARATNAMMA Appellant
VERSUS
AKKINENI SATYANARAYANA Respondents

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,";


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