SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(AP) 316

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMASWAMY
Polangani Basavayya - Appellant
Versus
Kasi Visweswara Swamy Temple, Arthanuru rep.by its Heriditory Trustee Sri M Narayana Murthy - Respondent
Decided On : 08-13-86

The power and jurisdiction of the Special Officer under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) to determine fair rent continues till the committee under Section 74 (1) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (17 of 1966) is constituted.

Headnote:

TENANCY ACT - FAIR RENT - JURISDICTION - SPECIAL OFFICER - COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED UNDER ENDOWMENTS ACT - POWER AND JURISDICTION OF SPECIAL OFFICER TO DETERMINE FAIR RENT CONTINUES TILL COMMITTEE IS CONSTITUTED - SECTION 18 (2) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH (ANDHRA AREA) TENANCY ACT (XVIII OF 1956) - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a tenant, filed a petition under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956) for fixation of fair rent. The Special Officer dismissed the application. On appeal, the appellate authority held that the application was not maintainable due to Section 18 (2) of the Act, read with Section 74 (1) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (17 of 1966).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the power and jurisdiction of the Special Officer under Section 16 of the Act to determine fair rent continues till the committee under Section 74 (1) (e) of the Endowments Act is constituted. The court also found that the appellate court erred in not considering the evidence on record and in arbitrarily dismissing the petition.

Issues: 1. Whether the petition under Section 6 of the Act is maintainable after the amendment of the Act on July 1, 1980? 2. Whether the Special Officer has jurisdiction to determine fair rent so long as the committee under Section 74 (1) (e) of the Endowments Act has not been constituted? 3. Whether the appellate court erred in not considering the evidence on record and in arbitrarily dismissing the petition?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 18 (2) of the Act, which excludes the application of Section 6 to certain agricultural lands, does not completely oust the jurisdiction of the Special Officer. It only operates to divest the Special Officer's jurisdiction from the date of constitution of the committee under Section 74 (1) (e) of the Endowments Act. 2. The power and jurisdiction of the Special Officer under Section 16 of the Act to determine fair rent continues till the committee under Section 74 (1) (e) of the Endowments Act is constituted. 3. The appellate court erred in not considering the evidence on record and in arbitrarily dismissing the petition.

Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the appellate court were set aside, and the case was remitted to the appellate court for fresh consideration and disposal according to law.

K. RAMA SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a tenant. He filed a petition under Section 6 of the andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy act (XVIII of 1956) for short, the Act" as amended by Act XXXIX of 1974, for short, "the Amendment Act", for fixation of fair rent. The Special Officer dismissed the application. On appeal, the appellate authority held that the application filed under Section 6 of the Act is not maintainable by operation of Section 18 (2) of the Act, brought on statute by Amendment Act, read with Sec 74 (1) (e) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments act (17 of 1966) for short, "the Endowments Act". It was also held that the special Officer has rightly dismissed the application on merits. Assailing the correctness of the view taken by the appellate court, this revision has been filed.

( 2 ) SRI C. Trivikrama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that under section 74 (1) (e) of the Endowments Act, no committee as envisaged therein has been constituted and therefore the forum prescribed under the Act continues to be subsisting though Section 74 of the Endowments Act is applicable by operation of Sec. 18 (2) of the Act. In support thereof, he relied on K. Narayana murty Vs. Sub-Collector (1) 1972 (2) A. P. L. J. 356. It is further contended that the appellate Court did not go into the evidence and therefore the finding that the Special Officer has rightly dismissed the application on merits, is no finding according to law.

( 3 ) SRI S. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that by operation of section 18 (2) of the Act, the forum prescribed under section 6 of the act has been taken out. Till date though the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu religious and Endowments Rent Committee Rulas, 1975, for short, "the Rules" have been framed under Section 74 of the Endowments Act, constituting a committee, the members have not been nominated and the said committee did not start functioning. Therefore the remedy open to the petitioner is to file writ petition to command the appropriate authority to constitute the committee and thereafter seek adjudication of his rights Thus, the Special Officer is devoid of jurisdiction. It is next contended that the Special Officer has gone into the evidence and found that the agreed rent under the terms is a fair rent and there is no evidence contra adduced. The Special officer has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to have the fair rent fixed. Therefore, there is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference in the revision petition.

( 4 ) THE respective contentions give rise to the question whether the petition under section 6 of the Act is maintainable after July, 1, 1980 the date on which the amendment Act has come into force. Section 3 of the Act prescribes the maximum rent payable by the cultivating tenant and Section 4 of the Act allows contractual freedom to the parties to enter into a contract of tenancy and quantum of rent. Section 5 of the Act provides the time schedule to pay the rent as per the contract and Section 6 gives the power and jurisdiction to the special Officer to determine fair rent subject to the fulfilment of the conditions provided under Sub-section (2) thereof. Section 16 of the Act provides the forum which reads thus:-"16. (1) Any dispute arising under this Act between the landlord and a cultivating tenant in relation to a matter not otherwise decided by the Special officer under the Provisions of this Act, shall, on application by the land-lord or the cultivating tenant, as the case may be, be decided by the Special Officer after making an enquiry in the manner prescribed". Therefore, sections 3 to 5 of the Act provide the rights to the parties to enter into a contract for payment of the rent. Section 6 of the Act prescribes fair rent to be determined and Section 16 gives the forum to adjudicate the rights between the cultivating tenant and the l





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top