BODEDDULA LAXMI NARAYANA REDDY Vs. VENNAPUSA CHENNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed Tenancy Application No. 1 of 1999 in the Court of Junior civil Judge, Tadpatri, under the provisions of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy act, 1956 (for short 'the Act' ). He prayed for the relief of declaration that, a) he is a statutory tenant under the Act, in respect of Ac. 4. 34 guntas of peddapur Village, owned by the 2nd respondent, b) the sale deed dated 28-05-1998, executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent is hit by section 15 of the Act, and c) for the relief of restitution of possession of the land. He pleaded that he became a tenant in respect of the land, with effect from 11-01-1997, on an yearly lease of Rs. 11,000/- for a period of three years, and even during the subsistence of the same, the 2nd respondent sold the land in favour of the 1st respondent, contrary to Section 15 of the Act. He further states that, much before the sale deed, he got issued a notice dated 22-05-1998. He complained that the 1st respondent damaged the Banana crop and forcibly dispossessed him from the land on 05-03-1997. The respondents herein opposed the case, by filing separate counters. They denied the lease in favour of the petitioner, or his possession over the property, at any point of time. Through order dated 08-09-2000, the trial Court allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed a. T. A. No. 1 of 2001, before the District Court, Anantapur. The appeal was allowed on 17-12-2002. Hence this revision. Sri Moola Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client placed adequate material before the trial Court to prove his tenancy over the land. He contends that though the petitioner was dispossessed from the land, the rights that have accrued to him, as a tenant, cannot be defeated. He submits that the lower Appellate Court did not appreciate the matter from the correct perspective.

(2.) SRI O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the very application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable, since he was not in possession of the property, at any point of time. He contends that even otherwise, the dispossession of the petitioner has taken place long prior to the sale deed in favour of his client, and as such, it cannot be said to be violative of Section 15 of the Act. The Act provides for various rights and remedies for tenants, as well as landholders, in the Andhra Area. One such right is, that, a tenant cannot be evicted, otherwise than through the prescribed procedure. Another right is that, in case there exists a tenancy, and if the landholder intends to sell the property, the first option shall be given to the tenant, for purchase thereof. The procedure in this regard is governed by Section 15 of the act. Any sale contrary to Section 15 is declared as void. The various categories of rights are available to an individual, if only there exists tenancy, in his favour. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1) Whether the petitioner is tenant of respondent No. 1 with respect to petition schedule property ? 2) Whether the petitioner was dispossessed by respondent No. 1 forcibly ? 3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the petition ? on behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 4 were examined, and Exs. A-1 to A-8 were marked. RWs 1 and 2 were examined, and Exs. R-1 and R-2 were filed by the respondents.

(3.) IT answered points 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner, but denied the relief by answering the third point against him. The lower Appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the trial Court. According to the petitioner, the tenancy commenced from 11-01-1997, and he was dispossessed on 05-03-1997. It means that he was in possession of the property, hardly for a period of two months. The tenancy of the petitioner was yet to become the one, covered by Section 10 of the Act. The very fact that the petitioner sought for a declaration, to the effect that his tenancy is for a period of six years, discloses that, till such a declaration is granted, he is not entitled for the protection under the Act. Therefore, it becomes doubtful, whether the petitioner can be treated as a tenant, or is entitled for the protection under the Act.