CHITTOORI SWAMY Vs. RAVULA SURYANARAYANA
LAWS(APH)-1969-12-5
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 29,1969

CHITTOORI SWAMY Appellant
VERSUS
RAVULA SURYANARAYANA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ADAPA ABBAYI VS. REDDIPANTULU CHOUDHRY [LAWS(APH)-1973-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
KANNAJI RAMULU VS. SUVARNESWARASWAMY VARI TEMPLE REP [LAWS(APH)-1980-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
K KUSUMA KUMARI VS. G SURYA BHAGAWAN [LAWS(APH)-1995-9-13] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Madhava Reddy, J. - (1.)The result of this writ appeal depends upon the view we take on the question whether the tenant is liable to be evicted on his failure to pay the rent as reduced by the Tahsildar by an order under section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act XVIII of 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.)The relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition out of which this writ appeal arises may be briefly stated: The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the tenants of the lands belonging to the appellant the extent of which is Ac. 22 8rcents in Madhavaram Village, Pithapuram taluk, East Godavary District. Under the terms of the lease they have to pay a rent of 190 bags of paddy per year and for the year 1956-57 they had to pay the said rent by 31st of January, 1957. The tenants fileda petiton A.T.P. No. 5 of 1966 under section 8 of the Act for full remission alleging that there was total failure of crops during 1956-57 due to floods. The Deputy Tahsildar by an order dated 3rd April, 1957 allowed the petition A.T.P. No. 5 of 1966 reducing the rent payable for that year to 25 bags 10 kunchams of paddy, 24 kunchams of green gram and 5 kunchams of black gram. The landlord preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed. He carried the matter in revision to the High Court, but the Civil Revision Petition No. 1268 of 1057 filed by him was dismissed on 2nd April, 1962. The tenants do not seem to be aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar dated 30th April, 1957 for they never challenged the same at any subsequent stage. Even while the Civil Revision Petition was pending in the High Court as the claim for arrears of rent for the year 1956-57 was becoming barred the landlord filed O.S. No. 24 of 1960 in the Court of the District Munsif Peddapuram for recovery of the value of full rent for that year. The tenants pleaded discharge which the Court disbelieved. In view of the remission granted to the teriants by the Tahsildar, the Court decreed the plaintiff's claim to the extent of the value of the rent due after allowing the remission granted under section 8 of the Act together with proportionate costs. The appeal preferred by the tenants A.S. No. 146 of 1963 on the file of the Sub-Court, Kakinada, against the decree and judgment in O.S. No 24 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Peddapuram was also dismissed. The landlord, filed an execution petition to recover the reduced rent as ordered by the Deputy Tahsildar on 3Oth April, 1967 under section 8 of the Act in A.T.P. No. 5 of 1956 and decree in O. S. No. 24 of 1960 on the file of District Munsif's Court, Peddapuram on 28th September, 1963. Thereafter the landlord filed A.T.P. No. 17 of 1963 on the Court of the Deputy Tahsildar, Pithapuram under section 13 (a) and (f) of the Act for eviction of the tenants for default of payment of maktha for 1956-57. The tenants opposed the petition. The tenants stated that they sent a registered notice to the landlord to receive the rent as ordered by the Deputy Tahsildar Pithapuram, in A.T.P. No. 5 of 1966 but the landlord refused to receive the same. They also pleaded that the rent due was paid. Alternatively they contended that even assuming without admitting that the respondents did not pay the rent as alleged, even then as they had offered to pay and the landlord had refused to receive it and also because he received the maktha for the subsequent years he is not entitled to file a petition for eviction. It was further stated by the tenants that before filing A.S. No. 146 of 1963 in Sub-Court, Kakinada they deposited the rent decreed in O.S. No. 24 of 196o and that the landlord had filed A.T.P. No. 36 of 1958 for evicting the tenants on the ground that they defaulted to pay part of the rent for the year 1957-58. In that petition the landlord did not mention the default in payment of rent for 1957 as a ground for evicting the tenants and this failure to seek the relief of eviction on the said cause of action, the tenants pleaded that the present petition A.T.P. No. 17 of 1963 is barred under Order 2, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. It was also contended that as the order dismissing A.T.P. No. 36 of 1958 was confirmed in C.R.P. No. 1483 of 1958 and as the rents of the subsequent years, 1958-59, 1960-61, 1961-62, and 1962-63 were accepted without protest the 1st respondent must be deemed to have waived his right to evict the tenants for default of payment of rent in 1956-57. The Deputy Tahsildar, Pithapuram dismissed this petition A.T.P. No. 17 of 1963 holding that section 13 (a) is inapplicable to the facts of the case and that there was no failure to comply with the order of the Deputy Tahsildar within reasonable time. He also held that it is not established beyon doubt that there was no offer of rent for 1956-57 within reasonable time by the respondent (tenants). He therefore gave the benefit of doubt to the tenant- esponde ts and dismissed the petition. The landlord filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, who held " that the conclusion that the respondents committed default in payment of makta for 1956-57 as ordered by the Deputy Tahsildar, Pithapuram on the application filed by the respondents in A.T.P. No. 5 of 1956 or remission of rent is irresistable." In view of this conclusion, he held that the default entailed eviction under section 13 (f) of the Act and accordingly directed that the tenants be evicted from the schedule lands and that the landlord be put in possession thereof, within two months from the date of the order.
(3.)Our learned brother, Chinnappa Reddy, J. before whom the writ petition filed by the tenants came up for hearing was of the view, that " if the rent due as determined by the Tahsildar under section of the Act is not paid within thirty days of the order, the tenant is not liable to be evicted under section 13 (a) of the Act."
;


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