MR.SESHACHALAPATI,J. - (1.)This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order of the Special Deputy Tahsildar, Narsapur (T.W.), dated 17th March, 1953 in T.A. No. 47 of 1957, on his file, filed by the respondent under section 6 read with section 10 (2) of the Andhra Tenancy Act (XVIII of 1956), for fixing fair rent for the holding in question.
(2.)The facts leading upto the filing of that application and the decision by the Deputy Tahsildar may be briefly stated. The petitioners, are the landlords of the land in question. The respondent claims to be their tenant under a registered lease deed executed on 25th April, 1953, for a term which was to expire on 12th March, 1956. The, lessor was the father of the present petitioners. It is the case of the respondent that after the death of the leasor in 1954, the petitioners received rent and also granted to the present respondent a lease for one year orally. On 9th March, 1956, the landlords gave the a present respondent a notice to quit and also filed O. S. No. 68 of 1956, on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Narasapur, on the 13th April, 1956, for Rs. 2,585-2-5 as and for arrears of rent and for possession of the lands on the foot of the expiry of the lease as and from 12th March, 1956. After the promulgation of the Andhra Ordinance (I of 1955), the tenant put in an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur, under section 3 of the Ordinance and had deposited Rs. 300 to the credit of the landlords. That application was transferred to the Deputy Tahsildar, Narsapur. The tenant also claims that he is a cultivating tenant and entitled to the benefits of Act XVIII of 1956. He had also deposited on 9th January, 1957, Rs. 1286 being the value of makta payable for the year 1956 and also made further deposit of the amount of rent for the year 1957.
(3.)The landlords have resisted the application for fixing fair rent on various grounds. It is first alleged by them that after the expiry of the registered lease, there was no lease, and, therefore, no subsisting tenancy, secondly, that the Andhra Ordinance (I of 1956), and the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956, would not apply to the present case, thirdly, that the respondent is not a cultivating tenant within the meaning of section 2(c) of Act XVIII of 1956, and that in any view since the civil Court is seized of the matter by reason of the filing of O.S. No. 68 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Narasapur, the present application before the Deputy Tahsildar is incompetent and unsustainable.