Case: Undavilli Nagarathnam &amp; Anr Vs. Reddi Satyanarayana Murthi &amp; Ors

regard to tenants inducted into the land by a mortgagee cases may arise where we said ten ants may acquire rights of special character by virtue of statutory provisions which by, in the meanwhile, come into operation. A permissible settlements a mortgagee in possession with a tenant in the course of prudent management and the springing up of rights in the tenant conferred or created by statute based on the nature of the land and possession for the requisite period, it was observed, was a different matter altogether".Counsel submits that the present case is clearly distinguishable from the above case since prior to the execution of Ex. B-13 in 1958 the Andhra Act had already come into force and it was not a case where certain special rights were created "in the meanwhile".10. When a person with full knowledge of the law, ignorance of which is no excuse, enters upon a lawful transaction or executes a valid document, the rights flowing from the law cannot be denied to those who are entitled to their benefit on th e supposed theory of estoppel or a plea of contracting out by implication. Prabhus case (supra) is not an authority for such a proposition which counsel seeks to spell out. The provisions of the Andhra Act will, therefore, be attracted to t he tenancy created by Ex. B-13.It is further contended by Mr. Natesan that the plaintiffs are not landlords within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Andhra Act. He also submits that defendant No. 1 is not a cultivating tenant under the plaintiffs.By section 2(f) of the Andhra Act, " landlord means, the owner of a holding or part thereof who is entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from such holding or part, and includes the heirs, assignees, legal representatives of such own er, or person deriving rights through him".By section 2(c) of the said Act, " cultivating tenant means a per son who cultivates by his own labour or by that of any other member of his family or by hired labour under his supervision and control, any land belonging to another under a tenancy agreement, express or implied, but does not include a mere intermediary".The High Court has found that defendant No. 1 was a cultivating tenant of the landlord under Subbarayudu relying on Ex. B-13 and also on admissions by the defendants 2 and 3 who conceded possession of the land by defendant No. 1 as a lessee under Subbarayudu and their own possession as farm servants under the first defendant. We have no reason to take a contrary view.In view of our conclusion that Ex. B-13 is an instrument of lease, there is no difficulty in holding that Subbarayudu was the quondam landlord of the first defendant within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Andhra Act. Once that is established, section 10 of the Andhra Act takes care of the tenancy that has been created under Ex. B-13.11. Section 10 of the Andhra Act at the relevant time reads as under:"10(1) "The minimum period of every lease entered into between a landlord and his cultivating tenant on or after the commencement of this Act, shall be six years. Every such lease shall be in writing and shall specify the holding, its extent and the rent payable therefore, with such other particulars, as may be prescribed. The stamp and registration charges for every such lease shall be borne by the landlord and the cultivating tenant in equal shares.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) all tenancies subsisting on the date of promulgation of the Andhra Cultivating Tenants Protection ordinance, 1956 (Andhra ordinance 1 of 1956), and protected by that ordinance, and all subsequent tenancy agreements entered into up to the commencement of this Act, shall continue for a period of five years from the 1st June 1956 or until the expiry of the lease in the normal course, whichever is later, on the same terms and conditions as before, but subject to the determination of fair rent in case of dispute.(3) After such termination, the landlord may resume the land from the cultivating tenant without any notice, and if the tenant does not surrender possession, the landlord may by an application before the Tahsildar obtain an order for delivery of possession in the prescribed manner".Thus under section 10(1) when Ex. B-13 was executed on August 4, 1958, the lease created would by statute continue up to August 4, 1964 and even for further periods by later amendments of the Act. Taking the original section 10(1) itself, the landlord Subbarayudu died in May 1960 and there is n o question of the lease ceasing on his death in view of the clear provision under section 10(1). As assignees by gift the plaintiffs are landlords on the death of Subbarayudu. Under section 11, the ownership thus being changed on the death of the landlord, the tenancy, which subsists by operation of law, will continue on the same terms and conditions for the unexpired portion of the lease under the scheme of the Act as amended. The expression "currency of the lease" in section 1-1 will include the statutory extension of the lease under the provisions of the Andhra Act.12. Termination of tenancy under the Andhra Act is provided for under section 13. Under section 16" there is a special forum for adjudication of disputes under the Act including eviction of cultivating tenants. Under section 17 the provisions of the Andhra Act override anything inconsistent therewith contained in any preexisting law, custom, usage, agreement or decree or order of a Court.It is, therefore, clear that the civil litigation between the parties having established their respective rights based on the two documents, Ex. A-1 and Ex. B-13, and the plaintiffs being landlords and defendant No. 1 being a cultivating tenant, eviction will have to be sought for in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Act. The High Court is right in refusing eviction through the process of the civil court.13.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]We are satisfied that the document (Ex. B-13) fulfils the ingredients of a lease under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. The submission of Mr Natesan, therefore, cannot be accepted.Mr. Natesan next contends that Subbarayudu reserving; only "life interest" in the Schedule and properties after he had gifted the same to the plaintiffs by A-1 on April 14, 1955, could not in law imperil their rights to possession of the same after his death by leasing out the same properties in 1958 in the manner done in view of the provisions of the Andhra Act which had already come into force in 1956. At any rate, says Mr. Natesan, it was not an act of prudent management of the properties in which he had only life interest and the principles applicable to a mortgagee in possession under section 76(a) and (e) of the Transfer of Property Act would be applicable in the present case and the lease will not be binding on theof tenancy under the Andhra Act is provided for under section 13. Under section 16" there is a special forum for adjudication of disputes under the Act including eviction of cultivating tenants. Under section 17 the provisions of the Andhra Act override anything inconsistent therewith contained in any preexisting law, custom, usage, agreement or decree or order of a Court.It is, therefore, clear that the civil litigation between the parties having established their respective rights based on the two documents, Ex. A-1 and Ex. B-13, and the plaintiffs being landlords and defendant No. 1 being a cultivating tenant, eviction will have to be sought for in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Act. The High Court is right in refusing eviction through the process of the civil court.