Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 518
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL RAO
Shaik Nabi - Appellant
Versus
N.Parijattha - Respondent
Decided On : 08-31-95
The surrender of tenancy rights under Section 19 (1) of the A. P. (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 must be made in writing and admitted by the tenant before and made in good faith to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar.
Headnote:
TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT - SECTION 19 - SECTION 28 - SECTION 40 - SECTION 32 - A. P. (TELANGANA AREA) ABOLITION OF INAMS ACT - SECTION 38 (3) - SECTION 7 - SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS - TERMINATION OF TENANCY - DELIVERY OF POSSESSION - PROTECTED TENANCY CERTIFICATE - INAMS ABOLITION ACT - OCCUPANCY RIGHTS - REVISION PETITION - JURISDICTION - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY - JOINDER OF LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Inamdars, filed a revision petition challenging the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, which allowed the appeal filed by the respondents, the legal representatives of the original protected tenants, Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy. The respondents had filed a petition under Sections 40 and 32 of the A. P. (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (the Act) for grant of succession certificate of protected tenancy and delivery of possession of the land after evicting the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the protected tenancy of Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy was terminated in 1959 itself, pursuant to an order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar, and hence the present application filed by Krishna Reddy, the son of Narsa Reddy, was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of the Joint Collector allowing the appeal was illegal and improper. The court found that the protected tenancy of Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy was terminated in 1959 itself, pursuant to an order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar, and hence the present application filed by Krishna Reddy was not maintainable. The court also held that the compromise petition filed by the tenants before the Tahsildar was not valid as it did not comply with the requirements of Section 19 (1) of the Act, which mandates that surrender of tenancy rights must be made in writing and admitted by the tenant before and made in good faith to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar. The court further held that the respondents were not entitled to any relief under Sections 40 and 32 of the Act as the original tenants had no subsisting tenancy rights at the time of their death.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of the Joint Collector allowing the appeal was legal and proper? 2. Whether the protected tenancy of Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy was terminated in 1959 itself, pursuant to an order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar? 3. Whether the compromise petition filed by the tenants before the Tahsildar was valid? 4. Whether the respondents were entitled to any relief under Sections 40 and 32 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of the Joint Collector allowing the appeal was illegal and improper because the protected tenancy of Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy was terminated in 1959 itself, pursuant to an order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar, and hence the present application filed by Krishna Reddy was not maintainable. 2. The court held that the protected tenancy of Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy was terminated in 1959 itself, pursuant to an order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar, because the tenants had committed default in payment of rents and the Tahsildar had ordered their eviction. The tenants had filed an appeal against the order of eviction, but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority and the order of eviction had become final. 3. The court held that the compromise petition filed by the tenants before the Tahsildar was not valid because it did not comply with the requirements of Section 19 (1) of the Act, which mandates that surrender of tenancy rights must be made in writing and admitted by the tenant before and made in good faith to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar. The court held that the compromise petition was not made in good faith as the tenants were forced to surrender their tenancy rights due to the default committed by them in non-payment of rents. 4. The court held that the respondents were not entitled to any relief under Sections 40 and 32 of the Act as the original tenants had no subsisting tenancy rights at the time of their death.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Joint Collector, and upheld the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer dismissing the petition filed by the respondents under Sections 40 and 32 of the Act.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 91 of the A. P. (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). The petitioners-herein were the respondents in Case No. B/23892/82, on the file of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. The respondents-herein are the legal representatives of one N. Krishna reddy, who was the petitioner in Case No. B/23892/1982 before the Mandal revenue Officer, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Late Krishna reddy filed the above-said petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, malkajgiri Mandal, under Sec. 40 of the Act for granting succession certificate of protected tenancy and also under Section32 of the Act for delivery of possession of the land after evicting the respondents therein (petitioners-herein ).
( 2 ) THE facts, as disclosed from the petition filed by Krishna Reddy before the mandal Revenue Officer, are as follows: One L. Ella Reddy and His brother narsa Reddy were the protected-tenants under the Inamdar, who was the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners herein, with respect to the suit schedule land. After the death of Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy, taking advantage of the minority of Krishna Reddy and others, they were dispossessed by the petitioners-herein. It is significant to note that the date of dispossession has not been stated in the said application. During the pendency of the said petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Krishna Reddy died and his legal representatives were brought on record, who are the respondents-herein. Krishna Reddy is the son of Narsa Reddy. Though Ella Reddy has got sons, they were not impleaded as party-petitioners in that petition.
( 3 ) THAT petition was opposed by the Inamdars (the petitioners-herein), alleging that Yella Reddy and Narsa Reddy died after they were evicted by the tahsildar on 10-8-1962, in the Execution Proceedings, viz. , E. 2/4603/60, taken pursuant to the termination of their tenancy rights by the Inamdar. This execution proceeding was filed for implementing the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar on20-7-1959,ineviction Petitionno. A. 5/1082/58,filed by the inamdar, under Sections 28 and 32 (2) of the Act, against Ella Reddy and Narsa reddy. As the default in payment of rents committed by the protected-tenants was for less than three years, the Tahsildar granted 90 days time for payment of the entire arrears of rent due, with a default clause for eviction. Against the order of eviction passed by the Tahsildar, the tenants Ella Reddy and Narsa reddy filed an appeal before the Joint Collector, Hyderabad, which was numbered as File No. B. 7/32883/59. The said appeal was dismissed on 7-12-1959. Against that order, even though revision lies under Section 91 of the act, the same was not filed. Therefore, the order of eviction passed by the tahsildar had become final. As Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy failed to comply with the conditional order passed by the Tahsildar, the Inamdar filed E. P. No. E. 2/4603/60, before the Tahsildar, East Taluk, Hyderabad. Ella Reddy and narsa Reddy filed a petition bearing No. A-3/4650/59, before the Deputy tahsildar, Eastern Division, Hyderabad District, for fixation of fair lease amount under Section 11 and Sec. 17 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, regarding the very same lands, but they did not succeed in the said petition. On account of pendency of this fixation of fair rent application, filed by Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy, referred to above, the E. P. filed by the Inamdar was kept pending and ultimately an order was passed on ,10-8-1962 for eviction of Ella Reddy and Narsa Reddy. The extent of the land covered by these proceedings is Ac. 25-27 guntas of land. The notice of termination, given by the Inamdar in the year 1955 to Ella Reddy and Narsa reddy, also relates to Ac. 25-27 guntas of land. The same extent is also the subject-matter of the eviction petiti
