A shikmidar governed by the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act is liable to be evicted for non-payment of rent, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against a shikmidar.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Warangal decreeing the plaintiffs suit O. S. No. 22 of 1958. the suit was instituted by six plaintiffs for a declaration that they were the owners of the suit lands, and for recovery of possession and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was stated in paragraph 1 of the plaint that as the result of partition entered into between plaintiffs 1 to 5 and the 6th plaintiff the properties fell to the share of plaintiffs 1 to 5. According to paragraph 2 of the plaint, the defendants are the asamees cultivating the suit lands. As they defaulted to pay rent, a suit was instituted in Mahboobabad Tahseel for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. the suit was decreed. The defendants thereupon trespassed on the plaint schedule lands. A suit was once again filed in Mahboobabad Tahseel on 17-3-1958. There was a compromise entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants under which the defendants agreed to purchase the wet lands at the rate of Rs. 2,000. 00 per acre, dry land at the rate of Rs. 275. 00 per acre and bagat lands at Rs. 500. 00 per acre. They once again defaulted to pay the sale price as agreed to between them. In paragraph 4 of the plaint if is alleged that they obtained Shikmeedsry certificates with the assistance of Narasimha Rao, appointed as Gumasta Patwary of Betole. Later on they got their names entered as the owners of the lands. The suit was therefore instituted for a declaration that they were the owners and that the defendants were not the owners.

( 2 ) IN the written statement died by the defendants it was admitted that they were Shikmidars.

( 3 ) THE Court below held that the plaintiffs are the owners and that as the defendants, the shikmidars, defaulted to pay rent, they were liable to be evicted. A decree for arrears was also passed. It is as against this judgment and decree that the appeal has been preferred to this Court.

( 4 ) THE only question that was argued by Sri Gopalrao Tuljapurkar was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction. Both the parties admitted that the defendants are shikmidars within the meaning of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (VIII ot 1317 Fasli), hereinafter referred to as "the Act", "shikmidar" is defined in Section 2 (12) of the Act as follows: " Shikmidar means the person who like a Pattadar possesses a title to the land or who from the beginning has been jointly in possession of the land with the pattadar, or who, before the commencement of this Act, has acquired by virtue of any regulation in force, or may acquire by virtue of that law the right of a Shikmidar. " The question as to whether a Shikmidar is governed by the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XVI of I960) hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act, was discussed by Kumarayya, J. in Syed Hassan v. Sandaiah, 1959-2 Andh WR 75. The learned Judge, after a discussion of the relevant provisions of both the Acts, name to the conclusion that the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act does not apply to Shikmidars. the learned Judge observed at page 77 as follows: "the concept of Shikmidar in the Hyderabad Revenue Act (VIII of 1317 F.) has certain Characteristic features and legal incidents. The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act does not appear to be concerned with such concept. It is concerned only with the tenants and protected tenants. " The learned Judge added that the mere fact that the protected tenants have majority of such rights as are enjoyed by Shikmidars does not bring the case within the purview of Section 99 of the Tenancy Act as to bar the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court. He wound up by saying: "suffice it to say that the expression "shikmidar" is different from the term "protected tenant" and the Tenancy Act is not concerned with the former which is the creature of Land Revenue Act and the rights and duties are regulated by that Act.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document