Decided on October 14,1992


Cited Judgements :-



- (1.)This writ petition arises out of an application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 for eviction of the 1st respondent-tenant from the land mentioned in the schedule to the said application. The Special Officer designated under the A.P. Tenancy Act (Munsif-Magistrate, Mangalagiri) allowed the application holding that the tenant denied the title of the landlord and committed default in the payment of rent to the real owner. On appeal to the District Judge, Guntur, the order of the Special Officer was revered and the eviction order was set aside. The learned District Judge held that the title of respondents 1 to 4 before him (writ petitioners herein) to the petition-schedule land was not prima facie established and therefore the question of denial of title of the landlord and failure in the payment of rent to respondents 1 to 4 did not arise. According to the findings of the learned District Judge, the petition-schedule land absolutely belonged to one Smt. Radhamma who executed a registered lease deed in favour of the appellant-tenant (1st respondent herein) in the year 1980 a year before her demise. The Learned District Judge held that by virtue of the settlement deed executed by her husband in the year 1921 and the operation of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, the said Radhamma became a full owner. It is this order of the learned District Judge that is challenged in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.)In this writ petition, two respondents were impleaded by the petitioners, they are: (1) the tenant and (2) the District Judge, Guntur. Respondents 5 to 8 before the appellate Court who remained ex parte in the appeal, are not parties in this writ petition. Four persons claiming to be the executor and beneficiaries under the will, have filed an application viz., WPMP18952/88 to implead them as parties. That petition was opposed by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners on the ground that their implead-petition was dismissed earlier by the Tenancy Court and no further steps were taken by the applicants. As the 1st respondent-tenant has recognised themas landlords and as they have sufficient interest in the subject-matter of the writ petition, I consider it just and proper to implead them. Accordingly, I allow the application for impleading and direct the four applicants to be impleaded as respondents 3 to 6 in the present writ petition.
(3.)The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are to be briefly stated: Way back in the year 1921, one Sri Mannava Parandhamaiah executed a registered settlement-deed (marked as Ex.A-1) conveying life interest in the landed property including the petition-schedule lands in favour of his wife by name Radhamma with vested remainder to her brother, Guduru Ramarayudu. Radhamma died on 8-7-1981. She leased out the lands to the 1st respondent for a period of five years by means of a registered lease-deed dated 22-5-1980. In respect of the same land, the brother of Radhamma - G. Ramarayudu, being a vested remainder holder executed a will dt.27-5-1951 to the mother of the 1st petitioner, father of petitioners 2 and 3, father of 4th petitioner, father of respondents 2 to 4 and husband of the 5th respondent. Ramarayudu died in the year 1952. The 1st petitioner's mother in turn executed a will in favour of the 1st petitioner and she died on 6-4-1956. Thus the petitioners claim title to the land through Sri Ramarayudu. petitioners issued a notice to the 1st respondent-tenant on 10-11-1981 demanding payment of the rent. The 1st respondent sent a reply stating that by virtue of the lease-deed dated 22-5-80 executed by late Radhamma, he had been paying the rent to the executor under the will (impleaded respondent No.6) and that the petitioners were not the true owners of the land. This led to the filing of ATC13 /82 in the Court of the Special Officer, Mangalagiri by the petitioners herein. The application was filed for a declaration that the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 in the ATC were the landlords and seeking for an injunction restraining the tenant from paying rents to any person other than the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5. Subsequently the petition was amended stating that the tenant denied title of the petitioners and therefore he was liable to be evicted from the petition- schedule lands. The summary of the conclusions reached by the Tenancy Court and the Appellate Court has already been set out above.

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