Edupalli Appalaswamy vs Allu Appalaswamy (Landlord) and Others

T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.—These two writ appeals relate to the construction of Section 12(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, for short the ''Act''.

The factual back ground of the case is as follows:

The tenant is the appellant in both the writ appeals. He had taken on lease an extent of Acs. 3-00 of land in Sy. Nos. l992/2 & 200/2 situated in Pulla Village, West Godavari District in the year 1966 from one D.V.M. Sitaramasomayajulu and he has also an extent of Ac. 7.00 or Ac. 8.00 of land of his own. On 22-1-1976 the 1st respondent-landlord had purchased the said Ac. 3-00 which was leased out to the tenant. Already he had an extent of Ac. 29.80 cents along with his three major sons. He filed T.A.No.4 of 1977 before the Tenancy Tahsildar, Eluru for eviction of the tenant for default in payment of rent, which was dismissed on 22-11-1978. Subsequently, there was a partition on25-6-1980 by which only this extent of land viz. Ac. 3.00 was allotted to his share. Thereafter, he filed A.T.C. 10 of 1984 before the Principal District Munsif (Special Officer), Eluru for resumption of land for his personal cultivation. The learned District Munsif allowed the petition. On appeal by the tenant in ATA No. 51 of 1984, the learned District Judge restricted the resumption of land to an extent of 50% of the leased land. Both the landlord and the tenant filed writ petitions against the order of the District Judge-W.P. No. 7486 of 1985 by the tenant and W.P.No. 10073 of 1985 by the landlord. The tenant''s writ petition viz., W.P.No.7486 of 1985 contending that there was no case for any resumption of land at all was dismissed. The landlord''s writ petition viz., W.P.No.10073 of 1985 which was for resumption of the entire land was allowed by the learned single Judge. The reason given was that the proviso to Section 12 of the Act limiting the right of resumption only to the extent of leaving to the tenant an area which should not be less than 50% of the leased out land was not properly considered by the learned District Judge.

The learned counsel for the appellant-tenant contended that the fact that the landlord was not allotted an equal share in the partition gave rise to an inference that the claim for resumption itself was not in good faith as required by Section 12 of the Act. However, as regards the finding of the learned District Munsif and the learned District Judge as upheld by the learned single Judge that the unequal partition itself was not mala fide, the learned counsel for the tenant was not able to persuade us to take the view that the landlord was not eligible for resumption. However, he argued that the construction of the proviso to Section 12 by the learned single Judge was not in accordance with the general tenor of Section 12 itself. He pointed out that Section 12 as it stood originally granted only a tenure of six years at a time and it was subsequently changed to tenancy in perpetually by the amendment Act 39 of 1974 with effect from 1-7-1980. Similarly, he pointed out that the unamended Section 12 provided continuance of tenancy even after the death of the tenant whereas under the amended Section 12, there is a right of resumption given to the landlord on his fulfilling three conditions viz., that the application is made in good faith, that he shall cultivate the land personally and that on resumption of the land, he shall not have a holding of land in excess of 2 /3rds of the ceiling area prescribed. He submitted that since Section 12 is an exception to the main thrust of the Act granting a perceptual right to the tenant, it should be construed strictly and if the proviso is also construed in the same manner, it would appear that the real intention of the legislature was to see that 50% of the leased out land is always retained with the tenant. He also submitted that while Section 12 restricts the total extent of land in the hands of the landlords not exceeding 2/3rds of the ceiling area on resumption, the same restriction is not made applicable to the tenant. He further submitted that while enquiry into the total holding of the landlord was envisaged by the main Section, no such enquiry was envisaged by the proviso and there is no method of computation given therein to adopt the construction made by the learned single Judge. He submitted that in these circumstances, the proviso must be construed to mean that a tenant should be left with 50% f the leased out land in each case with the result that the order of the learned District Judge restricting the resumption to 50% of the leased out land must be restored. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-landlord supported the order of the learned single Judge and submitted that the construction was in accordance with the object of the statute.

We may set down the provisions under consideration, which read as follows:

"Section 12: Resumption of possession of land leased by landlord for his personal cultivation: (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section 10, a landlord who in good faith requires for his personal cultivation any land leased by him to a cultivating tenant shall be entitled to resume possession of the land, so however, that the total extent of the land held by the landlord under his personal cultivation after such resumption does not exceed two-thirds of the ceiling area as defined in clause (c) of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973).

Provided that such a right of resumption shall be limited to an extent which shall, after such resumption leave, with the cultivating tenant an area which is not less than one half of the land held by him under lease prior to such resumption."

This Section is an exception to Section 10 which grants tenancy in perpetuity. The proviso enables the landlord to exercise a right of resumption. While the main part of the Section refers to the permissible total holding of the landlord, the proviso does not make a specific reference to the total holding of the tenant. However, we may keep in mind the object of the legislature which was given as follows:

"(d) that a person should be prohibited from taking in future, lands on lease, if in consequence thereof; the total extent of the land held by him, either as an owner or as a cultivating tenant or as both, exceeds two "family holdings" as defined in the Andhra Pradesh Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1961".

A reading of the proviso to Section 12 will show that what is required to be left with the tenant is an area which is described by the adjectival clause "which is not less than one-half of the land held by him under lease prior to such resumption". The adjectival clause is only a measure of the extent which can be retained and cannot be the extent itself. In other words, what is allowed to be retained by the tenant by this proviso is not 50% of the land leased out to him, but only an extent of land which shall not be less than 50% of the land leased to him. If this distinction is kept in mind as indicated by the learned single Judge, then the meaning of the Section along with the proviso is consistent and clear. To illustrate this, if we take a case where the tenant has no other land except the Sand taken on lease, the effect of the proviso will be that upon the exercise of the right of resumption by the landlord, the tenant will be left with 50% of the land actually leased, out to him. Similarly, if the landlord has no other land but the tenant has a large extent of land, it would still leave the tenant with land which would be more than the extent given to him under the lease, even assuming that the entire land is resumed by the landlord. On the other hand, if we take the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as the proper interpretation of the proviso, it would lead to haphazard result, in that in every case where the tenant has a large extent of land and the landlord has no other land at all, he would be able to resume only 50% of the land leased out by him. We do not think that the legislature would have intended such a haphazard result particularly when the object of the Act was to see that both the landlord and the tenant should not hold an extent which exceeds "two family holdings". The learned counsel pointed out that this particular object has not been carried out by the Section in the same manner since the main part of Section 12 refers to two-thirds of the ceiling land and not two "family holdings". Yet, we are of the opinion that by necessary implication, the landlord and the tenant should be treated in the same manner by the main Section and the proviso, so that the entire holding of the land-lord and the tenant must be taken into consideration while exercising the right of resumption since the emphasis is on personal cultivation. We therefore, agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge that the adjectival clause only describes the area that should be left with the tenant which is not necessarily confined to the leased out land, but it includes also all the lands held by him.

For the reasons stated above, both the writ appeals are dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.