LAWS(KAR)-1962-6-2

SHIVARAYA Vs. SIDDAMMA AND

Decided On June 20, 1962
SHIVARAYA Appellant
V/S
SIDDAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an application presented by the petitioner who claimed to be a protected tenant, for an order for possession under Section 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. That application was presented against respondent 2, and the Tahsildar gave the petitioner the order which he wanted. After that order was made by the Tahsildar, respondent 1 who is the brother's wife of respondent 2 presented an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner from the order made by the Tahsildar in which she stated that the petitioner was not a protected tenant of the land and that respondent 2 was not his landlord and that the land belonged to her. She also complained that a collusive order had been obtained by the petitioner with the connivance of respondent 2. The Deputy Commissioner in that appeal made an order setting aside the order made by the Tahsildar and remanding the proceedings to the Tahsildar for fresh disposal according to law.

(2.) Mr. Jahgirdar appearing for the petitioner in this revision petition questions the competence of the Deputy Commissioner to entertain an appeal by respondent 1 who was not a party to the proceedings before the Tahsildar.

(3.) It is clear that this contention is insubstantial. As pointed out by their Lordships of the High Court of Madras in Ponnalagu Ammal v. The State of Madras, AIR1953 Mad 485 under the practice consistently followed by the English Courts which is a just and equitable practice and which is in no way inconsistent with the doctrine that a right of appeal can only be created by statute, a person who is not a party to a suit may prefer an appeal if he is affected by the decree or order, to the appellate Court provided he obtains leave from the Court of appeal. That the Court of appeal has therefore the power to grant such leave being indisputable, the question is whether the Deputy Commissioner who must be regarded to have granted such leave to respondent 1 exercised his power arbitrarily or capriciously.