The agreed rent is presumed to be the fair rent until the contrary is proved, and the party challenging the agreed rent as not fair must establish his case by independent evidence.

( 1 ) THE third respondent-cultivating tenant was inducted into possession of Survey No. 350/1 admeasuring Act. 7-40 cents wet situate at Katravulllapalli village, Peddapuram Taluk, East Godvarai District, belonging to Sri Venkateswaraswami Vari Temple of that village, by the temple authorities on 15/08/1966 when he gave the highest bid of 110 pages of paddy per annum for faslis 1376 to 1381 at a public auction held in respect of those lands. An application under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the Act" for fixation of fair rent at 3 bags paddy per year, was filed by the cultivating tenant before the Tashildar , Peddapuram on 14/12/1966. The application was contested by the petitioner. The tenant examined himself as P. W. 1 the neighboring land-owners PWs. 2 and 3, and P. W. 4, the village Karnam in support of his case. The Petitioner herein examined R. W. 1, who participated in the auction offering 105 bags per annum to the lands in question and R. W. 2 the executive officer of the temple and filed Ex. R-1 public auction sale list. Ex, B-21 in O. S. No. 54/61 on the file of the Sub Court, Kakinada and Ex. R. 3 which is the price of the paddy in the year 1915 in support of his plea that the rent of 110 bags offered by the tenant at the pubic auction was fair and proper. The Tahsildar, on a consideration of the entire evidence, oral and documentary, adduced before him, has fixed the fair rent at 80 bags of paddy per year, i. e, 51/2 bags for the fist crop and 241/2 bags of summer crop. Aggrieved by that order appeals have been preferred by the landlord as well as the tenant tot he Revenue Divisional Officer who dismissed the appeal preferred by the temple and party allowed the appeal preferred by the tenant and fixed the fair rent at 44 bags per annum. Hence, this writ petition.

( 2 ) SRI Venugopala Reddy, for the petitioner contends that the application for fixation of air rent under Section 6 of the Act on 14-12-1966 is not maintainable in view of the coming into force of the Act 17 of 1966 and that the tribunals approach to the point at issue is illegal and erroneous. Sri Raghava Rao, for the respondent-tenant, opposed the alia that the plea relating to want of jurisdiction for the tribunals to fix fair rent is belated and is not permissible at this state and there is not merit in this writ petition.

( 3 ) UPON the facts and circumstances and the contentions raised, the following two questions arise for decision: 1. Whether the impugned order of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer are liable to be quashed on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to entertain the application to fix fair rent? 2. Whether the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal and liable to be set aside?

( 4 ) WITH regard to the question No. 1 it has been held by a Division Bench of this court in Avula Hanuma Reddy v. Sri Pushpagiri Mutt, (1970) 1 APLJ 41, (Short Notes) that the provisions of the Tenancy Act, a Special Act,. are applicable even to the lands owned by or endowed to the religious or charitable institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the tenancy will continue to subsist under the same terms by virtue of Section 10 of the Act subject to fixation of reasonable rent by the Committee appointed under Act No. 17 of 1966. The Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Official have no jurisdiction to entertain the application for fixation of fair rent in respect of temple lands. But this point cannot be permitted to be raised for more than one reason. Firstly it was not taken before the Tashilsar or the Revenue Divisional Officer or in the original Writ Petition but was raised for the first time only at time of the hearing of the writ petition. Secondly, no Committee has so far been constituted under the Act 17 of 1966 to fix reasonable rent in respect of the lands belonging to the temple. Hence, this preliminary objection cannot be entertained at this stage