Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Manchineni Venkata Ratnam vs District Judge, ... on 23 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(6)ALD169, 1999(6)ALT707, AIR 2000 (NOC) 24 (AP), 2000 A I H C 949, (1999) 6 ANDH LT 707, (1999) 6 ANDHLD 169
ORDER R. Ramanujam, J.
1. Whether a tenant, who is running a poultry farm on a land that was taken on lease can claim the tenancy rights guaranteed under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956?
2. This is the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition.
3. The facts that gave rise to this writ petition are:
Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, represented by its Executive Officer, 3rd respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as "the Devasthanam", is the owner of Ac.6.66 cents of land in RS No.437 of Poramki village, Krishna District. The said property was given on lease, originally, to the father of the petitioner herein. Item No.l of the petition schedule property, i.e., Ac. 1.00 cents out of Ac.6.66 cents, was leased out for the period 1987-88 on a rent of Rs.3,500/- for running a poultry farm. The remaining Ac.5.66 cents, i.e., Item No.2 of the petition schedule property, was leased out for the said period at an annual rent of Rs. 1,100/- per acre. After the death of the petitioner's father on 13-1-1988, the petitioner paid the arrears of rent on 22-3-1988 and put in an application to the Devasthanam to continue him as a lessee in the place of his father. Considering the said request, the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, appears to have accepted the tenancy in respect of Item No.l of the petition schedule property on the same yearly rent of Rs.3,500/- for a period of three years for running a poultry farm. The Commissioner of Endowments also appears to have granted lease in respect of Item No.2 of the petition schedule property for a period of two years on a rent of Rs.8,000/-per year. The petitioner herein was directed to furnish a security and executed a registered lease deed. The petitioner states that pursuant to that order of the Commissioner, he prepared and submitted a draft lease deed to the Devasthanam. The Devasthanam appears to have received the same and informed the petitioner that he would be intimated after obtaining legal advice. Later on, the Devasthanam intimated the petitioner that the Commissioner of Endowments issued orders cancelling the lease and called upon the petitioner to handover possession of the land.
4. Aggrieved by the said action of the Devasthanam, the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short "the Tenancy Act") before the Court of the Special Officer (Tenancy Cases)-cum-II Additional District Munsif, Vijayawada, praying for a declaration that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant of the petition schedule properties and for a consequential relief of renewal of tenancy.
5. The Devasthanam filed its counter contending, inter alia, that; the Commissioner of Endowments has every right to terminate the tenancy without giving any reasons; the land belonging to the Devasthanam is not supposed to be leased out for poultry farming; after realising the mistake the Commissioner of Endowments has rightly cancelled the lease; unless a proper lease deed is registered, the petitioner has no right to claim tenancy rights under the Act; and the petition is not maintainable in respect of Item No.1 of the petition schedule property inasmuch as the land is being used for running a poultry farm.
6. Both the parties let in oral and documentary evidence. Accepting the case of the petitioner and rejecting the contentions raised by the Devasthanam, the Special Officer, 2nd respondent herein, allowed the petition ATC No. 17 of 1989 filed by the petitioner herein declaring that the petitioner is a cultivating tenant and that he is entitled for renewal of the lease in respect of Item Nos.l and 2 of the petition schedule property for a further period of six years.
7. Aggrieved by the said order of the Special Officer, the Devasthanam filed CMA No.62 of 1992 under Section 16(2) of the Tenancy Act before the Court of the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, 1st respondent herein, hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Tribunal". The Appellate Tribunal, on a thorough examination of the facts, law and the rival contentions advanced by both sides, held that: (1) the land used for poultry farming cannot attract the provisions of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in respect of Item No.l of the petition schedule property; and (2) the petitioner herein is the cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.5.66 cents (Item No.2 of the petition schedule property). Thus holding, the Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal reversing the order of the Special Officer insofar as it relates to Item No.l of the petition schedule property and confirming his order with regard to Item No,2, i.e., Ac.5.66 cents, of the petition schedule property. Aggrieved by the said order, insofar as it is against him, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Prabhakara Rao, contended that: (a) the expression "agriculture" includes poultry farming also as defined under the Agricultural Refinance Corporation Act, 1963 (for short "the Refinance Act"); (b) the expression "cultivating tenant" has to be construed to include poultry farming also in the light of the aforesaid definition of "agriculture"; (c) the Appellant Tribunal, therefore, committed ajurisdictional error in reversing the Special Officer's finding regarding Item No.1 of the petition schedule property and failed to exercise the jurisdiction lawfully vested in it; and (d) accordingly, the order of the Appellate Tribunal to the extent of Item No.1 of the petition schedule property is unsustainable.
9. Strongly disputing the aforesaid contentions, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devasthanam Sri Metta Chandra Sekhara Rao supported the order of the Appellate Tribunal.
10. We are not impressed by any of the aforesaid contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Section 2(c) of the Tenancy Act defines the terms "cultivating tenant" thus:
"2(c). 'Cultivating tenant' means person who cultivates by his own labour or by that of any other members 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."
11. Even a cursory reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that a 'cultivating tenant' is one who cultivates the lands taken on lease, either personally or through hired labour. The crucial words in the aforesaid provision are: "cultivates" and "any land". - These two words, in our considered view, makes it abundantly clear that except cultivation of the land, the other allied operations to agriculture, like animal husbandry, dairy fanning and pisciculture, are specifically excluded from the purview of the Tenancy Act. This position is further made clear by Section 3 of the Tenancy Act, which is as under:
"Section 3. Maximum rent payable by cultivating tenants :--(1) The maximum rates of rent payable by a cultivating tenant to a landlord, expression in terms of proportion of gross produce, shall be-
(i) in the case of every crop grown on any irrigable land, other than the land irrigated by baling of water 30 per cent of the gross produce; and
(ii) in the case of every crop grown on any other land including unirrigable land, 25 per cent of the gross produce.
Explanation :--The rates mentioned above shall apply to all crops grown on the land, but the cultivating tenant shall be entitled to take the straw in its entirety.
(2) The cultivating tenant shall bear all the cultivation expenses inclusive of the cost of seed, ploughing, manuring, harvesting and thrashing and the landlord shall be liable to pay all dues payable to the Government and local authorities in respect of the land including the water-rate, if any, charged in respect therefor:
Provided that where the irrigation is irregular the cultivating tenant shall be liable to pay the excess water-rate charged therefore."
A close reading of the above provision clearly shows, beyond any doubt, that a cultivating tenant is one who grows crops on the land taken on lease.
12. Section 2(a) of the Refinance Act defines the expression "agriculture" for the purpose of that Act, thus:
"Section 2(a) 'Agriculture' includes animal husbandry, dairy farming, pisciculture and poultry farming."
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the definition of the expression "agriculture" is an inclusive one. The long title of the Refinance Act, which can be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the general scope of the said Act and of throwing light on its construction, Aswini Kumar v. Arabinda Bose, , is as under:
"An Act to provide for the establishment of a Corporation for granting medium and long-term credit by way of refinance or otherwise, for the development of agriculture and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."
A close reading of the above noted long title makes the scope of the Refinance Act clear and as to why the word "agriculture" is defined in its broadest sense. That is not the case under the Tenancy Act, and that wide concept of "agriculture" (in Refinance Act) will not fit into the definition of "cultivating tenant" under the Tenancy Act. As already noted, neither Section 2(c) nor Section 3 ofthe Tenancy Act employ the word "agriculture". The specific words used are "cultivation", "land", and "crops". Hence, the broad concept of "agriculture" occurring in the Refinance Act cannot be read into the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
13. The contention that the term "cultivating tenant" has to be interpreted to include poultry farming also, in the light of the inclusive definition of "agriculture" under the Refinance Act, is, therefore, misconceived and wholly untenable. Further, when the meaning of the term "cultivating tenant" is clearly ascertainable from the provisions of the Tenancy Act itself, there is absolutely no need to look for any external aid of construction, more so, to Refinance Act, which is not in ''pari materia' with the Tenancy Act. Such a course is also not permissible, S. Mohan Lal v. R. Kondiah, ; and Gwalior Rayons Silk MFG.QVVG.) Co. Ltd. v. Cutodian of Vested Forests, Palghat, .
14. In view of the aforegoing discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the tenant, who is running a poultry farm on the land taken on lease is not a "cultivating tenant" within the meaning of that term under Section 2(c) of the Tenancy Act. The contention of the petitioner's Counsel that the Appellate Tribunal has committed a jurisdictional error in reversing the order of the Special Officer in respect of Item No.1 of the petition schedule property is, therefore, unsustainable. In our considered view, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly decided the said issue.
15. For the aforegoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs, which are quantified at Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only).