Holding

The appellant did not surrender his tenancy as the statutory conditions under Section 14 were not complied with, and he is entitled to exercise his right of first purchase under Section 15; the Tribunal’s order is restored.

Summary

Musunuri Satyanarayana, a cultivating tenant, claimed under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act that he retained his tenancy and was entitled to purchase the land leased to him. The Tribunal upheld his claim, finding that he had never surrendered his tenancy and that a payment of Rs 49,125 was part‑payment for the purchase, not rent arrears. The District Judge and the High Court reversed, holding that the tenancy had been surrendered, albeit without any statutory notice or Special Officer order. The Supreme Court held that surrender of tenancy is valid only if a three‑month written notice is given to the landlord and Special Officer and the Special Officer records acceptance after an inquiry; none of these were proved. Consequently, the tenancy subsisted and the appellant was entitled to exercise his right of first purchase. The Court set aside the orders of the lower courts and restored the Tribunal’s decision.

Issues considered

The appellant had surrendered his tenancy under the provisions of Section 14 of the Tenancy Act.
Whether the sum of Rs 49,125 paid by the appellant was towards rent arrears or part consideration for the purchase of land.
Whether the appellant was entitled to exercise his right of first purchase under Section 15 of the Tenancy Act.
Whether the findings of the District Judge and High Court erred in concluding that the tenancy was surrendered.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act, 1956 (as amended 1974)s. 14, s. 15, s. 16

Subjects

cultivating tenantsurrender of tenancyright of first purchaselandlord‑tenant disputestatutory procedureTenancy Actcompromise deedland sale

Judgment

[2021] 10 S.C.R. 545 545

MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA A
v.
DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 6482-6483 of 2021)
OCTOBER 27, 2021 B
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act – ss.14, 15 and
16 – The appellant-tenant claimed the cultivating tenant’s right to
first purchase the land leased to him – Dispute arose between the
C
appellant and first respondent-landlord – The appellant had
approached the Tribunal claiming various reliefs u/s. 16 (1) of the
Andhra Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act i.e. for declaratory
relief that the price of the schedule land i.e., `1,25,000/per acre is
reasonable and stood accepted by the first respondent by receiving
the first instalment of `49,125/- by demand draft; that he was entitled D
to pay the balance sale price of `4,42,125/- to first respondent in
nine instalments; for a declaration that two registered sale deed
documents executed by first respondent in favour of the second
and third respondents are void – The Tribunal, upheld the appellant’s
claim and held that the appellant had never surrendered the tenancy;
E
that the compromise which was arrived at between the landlords
and that his possession as a cultivating tenant remained undisturbed
– Consequently, he was entitled to the purchase rights as the law
allowed – The District Court held that the relief granted by the
Tribunal was untenable as the appellant had surrendered the tenancy
– The High Court concurred with the Tribunal – On appeal, held: F
The twin conditions that make a valid surrender of tenancy are
firstly, three months’ notice in writing to the landlord, and the Special
Officer about the intention to surrender the tenancy, and secondly,
satisfaction recorded by the Special Officer in an order, after due
inquiry about the voluntary nature of the surrender of tenancy –
G
Neither first respondent nor the other contesting respondents (who
purchased the lands from her) pleaded or proved that notice in
writing was issued to them by the appellant, followed by inquiry
conducted by the Special Officer, culminating in an order accepting
such alleged surrender – Further, the order passed in the compromise
petition, clearly recorded, in more than one place, that the lease H
545
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A between the appellant on the one hand, and first respondent, on
the other, was subsisting and continuing – Therefore, clearly, the
findings of the District Judge and the High Court, regarding
surrender (either in part or fully) of the tenancy, are wholly
untenable – As far as agreement to purchase land is concerned, the
particulars of the demand drafts, and the registered sale deeds,
B
were exhibited during the proceedings – These were incontrovertible
facts – Having regard to these facts, appellant’s further case was
that a sum of `49,125/- was paid as first of the nine instalments, the
balance being ` 4,42,000/-. Ex. P-12 was the covering letter
enclosing a demand draft dated 26-09-2003 – That document
C categorically referred to the sale transaction, clearly spelling out
that the amount was towards an instalment payable as consideration
for purchase of property – The District Judge and the High Court
could not have upset the order of the tribunal as regards the
appellant’s exercise of right to purchase the property, u/s. 15 –
Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court, as well as the
D
judgment of the District Court, are set aside.
Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti
Chavare [1975] 3 SCR 839 – relied on.
Adapala Subbaiah vs. Shaik Hasan Saheb 2007 (4)
E ALT 54; Mygapula Venkateswara Rao vs. Ponangi
Venkataraju 1990 (1) APLJ (HC) 466; Badugu Venkata
Durga Rao and Ors. vs. Surneni Lakshmi 2001 (1)
ALT115; Madhao Tatya Sonar v. Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal Nagpur & Ors 1970 Mh. L.J. 991 – referred
to.
F
Case Law Reference
[1975] 3 SCR 839 relied on Para 35
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.6482-
6483 of 2021.
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.06.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad (For the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh) in Civil Revision Petition Nos.816 and 3591 of 2011.
Sridhar Potaraju, (Amicus Curiae) G. Seshagiri Rao, Ms. Shiwani
Tushir, Aayush, Advs. for the Appellant.
H
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 547

G.V.R. Choudary, Anumolu Chandershekhar, Ms. U. Toshitha, K. A
Shivraj Choudhuri, Sameer Kumar, Sanjeev Malhotra, Shah Rukh Ahmad,
Mandeep Baisala, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
B
1. Special leave granted. With consent of counsel for the parties,
the appeals were heard finally. The appellant is aggrieved by an order of
the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Andhra and
Telangana1 dismissing his revision petitions.
2. The appellant (hereafter called “Musunuri Satyanarayana”) C
had approached Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Tribunal (hereafter “the
tribunal”) claiming various reliefs under Section 16 (1) of the Andhra
Pradesh Tenancy (Andhra Area) Act (hereafter “the Tenancy Act”)
i.e. for declaratory relief that the price of the schedule land i.e., `1,25,000/
per acre is reasonable and stood accepted by the first respondent
(hereafter “Indira Devi”) by receiving the first instalment of `49,125/- D
by demand draft; that he was entitled to pay the balance sale price of
`4,42,125/- to Indira Devi in nine instalments; for a declaration that two
registered sale deed documents2 (hereafter “the impugned sale deeds”)
executed by Indira Devi in favour of the second and third respondents
(collectively called here as “contesting respondents” or “purchasers”) E
are void and for injunction against the respondents to prevent them from
interfering with his possession and tenancy of the petition schedule lands.
The tribunal granted the reliefs; the appellate authority (District Judge)
upset that order and the High Court affirmed the District Judge’s order,
dismissing the appellant’s revision petitions.
F
3. Indira Devi’s husband -late Dr. T. Veeraiah- had three brothers
Dr. T. Suryanarayana, Dr. T. Seshagiri Rao and T. Satyanarayana a
retired Engineer (R&B). T. Suryanarayana and T. Seshagiri Rao were
settled in the United States of America. T. Satyanarayana also used to
be in the USA for some time; he returned to Hyderabad to his daughter’s
house. After the death of their father Narasaiah, the said four brothers G
got landed properties. Dr. T. Suryanarayana appointed Indira Devi as
his general power of attorney. Her husband, T. Veeraiah died intestate
1
Dated 12.06.2015 in CRP No. 816/2015 and CRP No. 3591/2015.
2
Nos. 139/06 dated 03-02-06 and the registered sale deed document No. 140/06, dated
03-02-06 H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A on 04-02-2002. In terms of his will, his share of the properties devolved
on Indira Devi. These properties were situated at Mulukuduru and other
places. After her husband died, Indira Devi became the absolute owner
of all the properties, and she was a land lady within the meaning of the
provisions of Tenancy Act. Indira Devi, for herself and on behalf of Dr.
T. Suryanarayana (as his general power of attorney) filed A.T.C.No.5/
B
02 on the file of Special Officer, Ponnur against the appellant, one Pamidi
Koteswara Rao, Vezendla Rama Krishna, Chakravarapu Papa Raju,
her brother, her brother-in-law T. Satyanarayana and Marupudi Gnana
Prasada Rao Under Section 16(1) of the Tenancy Act to declare that
the lease between the appellant and the other respondents relating to the
C appellant’s 2/4th share in agreed maktha3 due for the years 2002-2003
and in future either to T. Satyanarayana or to Marupudi Gnana Prasada
Rao.
4. The appellant alleged that he was cultivating 13.65 acres and
the respondents 2 and 4 (in the petition) were cultivating 4.17 acres,
D 1.37 acres and 1.00. acre respectively. The appellant filed a suit 4, for
grant of permanent injunction against Ari Venkateswara Rao and 6 others
who at the instance of T. Satyanarayana were interfering with his tenancy
rights in the said land of 13.63 acres which includes the above schedule
land of 3.93 acres. The appellant also filed A.T.C. No. 3/02 against
Indira Devi, her brother-in-law Dr. T. Suryanarayana represented by his
E G.P.A. (Indira Devi) T. Satyanarayana and T. Seshagiri Rao for
declaration that he was the cultivating tenant of those 13.65 acres and
that the tenancy was subsisting. Interim injunction restraining the
respondents from interfering or causing obstruction with his tenancy
rights in the said lands too was sought.
F 5. It was alleged further that during pendency of the suits
(O.S.No.174/02, A.T.C.5/02 and A.T.C.3/02) a compromise took place
between all the parties (i.e. Indira Devi, and her brother-in-law Dr. T.
Suryanarayana and the appellant). The said two parties got their share
of 10.76 acres (which comprises of 7.04 acres in D.No.56/2,0.10 acres
G in D.No.56/3, 0.36 acres in D. No. 65/5B, and 1.89 acres in D.No.473/
3; 1.37 acres in D. No. 25). The remaining extents of lands situated in
other survey numbers fell to the share of T. Satyanarana and another
brother Dr. T. Seshagiri Rao. It was agreed by Indira Devi and
3
Agreed rent, either in cash or in kind, in the form of a measure of agricultural produce.
4
H O.S.No. 174/02
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 549
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

T. Suryanarayana that the petitioner would continue to cultivate the said A
land 10.76 acres as a tenant and pay maktha to Indira Devi.
6. The appellant urged that he and his wife purchased 3.37 acres
out of 5.39 acres belonging to T. Suryanarayana and the entire sale
consideration was paid to his G.P.A. Indira Devi, who, out of her land of
5.37 acres sold 0.76 acres in D. No. 473/3 to Jasti Sree Vani and 0.68 B
acres in D.No.25 to Venedla Rama Krishna, retaining with her schedule
land of 3.93 acres- which was in the appellant’s possession. As cultivating
tenant of the said schedule land, the appellant incurred heavy expenditure
and could complete the transplantation of paddy crop in the schedule
land in the end of last month only, and regularly paid the agreed makthas
without defaulting payments of cash amounts. It was alleged that when C
the appellant wished to purchase the agreed land, Indira Devi threatened
that she would sell the land to others in case he did not pay the entire
sale consideration at once and obtain registered sale deed from her. The
price determined for the schedule land was @ `1,25,00/- per acre. He
also alleged that as the price of the schedule land was determined, he D
was entitled to pay the sale consideration in ten equal instalments of
`49,125/- to Indira Devi one of such instalment was paid by way of a
demand draft drawn on Syndicate Bank, Mulukuduru in her name and
that the sale was deemed to have been effective. Consequently, the
balance consideration was payable in instalments upon terms agreed by
the parties. E

7. Indira Devi resisted the proceedings; pendente lite, an interim
order was made restraining alienation, which was extended from time to
time and was in force till 14-02-06. In violation of the interim order and
of Section 15 of Tenancy Act, Indira Devi sold 3.57 acres (which consists
of 3.47 acres cents in D. No. 56/2 and 0.10 acres in D. No. 56/3 of F
Mulukuduru village, i.e. items 1 and 2 of the petition schedule property)
to the second respondent (Gorijavolu Srinivasa Rao- hereafter “GS Rao”)
by Registered sale deed No.139/06, dated 03-02-2006 and 0.36 acres in
D. No. 6515B of the same village (item No.3 of the petition schedule
property) to third respondent Undrakonda Rama Rao (“U.R. Rao” G
hereafter)5 by a Registered Sale Deed No. 140, dated. 03-02-06. It was
further alleged that the respondents, encroached and disturbed crop
heaped in the said land of 3.47 acres committing theft of the paddy of
5
The second and third respondents are collectively referred hereafter, as “the contesting
respondents” H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A about 110 bags for which the appellant lodged a report to the Ponnur
police station. The sale of the lands by Indira Devi, were therefore illegal;
the impugned sale deeds were alleged to be invalid and void under law.
8. Indira Devi’s stand, in her reply was of denial; she alleged that
when a compromise took place between the parties, the appellant, by an
B oral agreement, gave up his tenancy in respect of the lands of her brother-
in-law, for which she was general power of attorney holder. It was alleged
that he however, failed to pay the makhta for prior periods. As he was
a retired revenue official, versed in procedure, he used to assist her
from time to time, and had even assisted her in respect of sale of the
C lands to Jasti Sree Vani and Venedla Rama Krishna. She alleged that
there was no land lord tenant relationship between her and the appellant
and further contended that at no point of time, she offered to sell the
schedule land to the appellant. The question of determination of price
for the schedule land @ `1,25 ,000/- per acre never arose. As there was
no negotiation for sale and purchase of the schedule land between them,
D the question of threatening the appellant for payment of the entire sale
consideration at once etc., does not arise. Furthermore, she adjusted the
sum of `49,125/- sent by the appellant through demand draft towards
the instalment towards arrears of maktha payable by her to the appellant
for the year 200l-03.
E 9. The contesting respondents/ purchasers alleged that Indira Devi
cultivated the land during the year 2005-06 and raised crops. She offered
to sell the land and they offered to purchase them; and also paid substantial
amounts before the execution of the impugned sale deeds. Indira Devi
delivered the land with heaps of paddy and they were entitled to those
F crops which they took away after thrashing. The appellant’s false report
to police led to investigation of the case. They further denied that the
appellant was ever in possession of the suit land after 2002-03 and
consequently the appellant was not entitled to any relief claimed.
10. Before the tribunal, the appellant produced the compromise
G deed, as well as the covering letter by which the sum of `49,125/- was
tendered to Indira Devi, towards part payment of consideration for the
sale. Indira Devi examined herself; the purchasers too participated in
the proceedings and they examined themselves. Several documents were
produced, including deeds giving effect to the compromise, and
subsequent sale deeds, including the impugned documents.
H
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 551
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

11. The tribunal, upheld the appellant’s claim. In doing so, the A
tribunal took into consideration the admission by Indira Devi, the first
respondent -during the course of her oral deposition, that she had sold
her property to the appellant as she was alone and was unable to manage
it. The tribunal rejected her contention that the appellant had surrendered
his tenancy. Most importantly, the tribunal held that the first respondent’s
B
argument that `49,125/- sent to her by the appellant was appropriated
towards past arrears of rent as untenable. To so conclude, the tribunal
relied upon the circumstance that no demand for alleged arrears of rent
had ever been made and that the document under which the demand
draft for the sum - `49,125/- was sent (produced as Ex. P-12) clearly
referred to the sale transaction and that the amount was part-payment C
towards it. Furthermore, the tribunal noted that in terms of the pleadings
of the parties, the rent agreed appeared to be `5,000/- per acre.
Arguendo, on a calculation, assuming that some arrears existed for a
past period, for the extent of land, i.e. 5.37 acres, the rental amounts
would have been only `28,850/-. On these considerations, the tribunal
D
upheld the claim and granted relief. In holding that the consideration of
`1,20,000/- per acre was reasonable, the tribunal took into account another
transaction whereby 3.57 acres in Survey No. 56/2 (which was registered
as Ex. P-15 and P-16) were valued at `1,25,000/- per acre when they
were sold by the first respondent. On an overall analysis of Section 14
of the Tenancy Act, the Tribunal held that the appellant had never E
surrendered the tenancy; that the compromise which was arrived at
between the landlords and that his possession as a cultivating tenant
remained undisturbed. Consequently, he was entitled to the purchase
rights as the law allowed which he had provided in the facts of the case.
12. The first respondent appealed to the appellate authority, i.e. F
the District Judge. The appeals were allowed by the District Judge who
held that the appellant had not established any continuing jural relation of
landlady and tenant to show that the same subsisted between him and
the first respondent. It was held that though the compromise, Ex. P-2
mentioned that he was a tenant ipso facto, that could not be given
credence having regard to other circumstances. The District Judge was G
swayed by the fact that two other persons had purchased parts of
properties in 2003 and held that the appellant lost possession as a tenant,
as a result of which there was no jural relation of landlord and tenant
between the appellant and Indira Devi which entitled him to claim the
right of purchase. It was furthermore held that the compromise indicated H
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A surrender of tenancy in part which is impermissible. The District Judge
construed the compromise deed as evidencing surrender of a part of the
tenancy and that disentitled a claim in terms of Section 14 (2) of the
Tenancy Act.
13. The appellant approached the High Court through revision
B petitions. His contention was that he continued as a tenant and therefore,
had a priority right to purchase the property under Section 15. On the
other hand, the respondents contended that the appellant had surrendered
part of the tenancy. The High Court stated that the District Judge had
elaborately discussed the evidence on record and ruled against the
appellant holding that he had surrendered the tenancy in 2003 itself. It
C was further held that by virtue of Section 14(2), no tenant could surrender
a part of the holding and that having regard to this bar, the appellant’s
contention that he did not surrender the holding was unacceptable. The
High Court concurred with and endorsed the reasoning of the District
Judge that the claim for priority purchase was in the facts of the case
D untenable and that the relief granted, by the tribunal was impermissible.
On the basis of these findings, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s
revision petition.
Parties’ contentions
14. It was argued on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Sridhar
E Potaraju, who was requested to act as amicus curiae (since the appellant
represented himself in the proceedings) that the findings recorded by
the District Judge are contrary to the record. It was argued that both the
District Judge as well as the High Court overlooked the salient
circumstance that the compromise [which took place in 2003] was in
F respect of settlement of inter se disputes of landlords. In terms of the
compromise, Indira Devi and T. Suryanarayana were given certain
portions whereas other two brothers became owners in respect of other
portions of the land. This compromise decree which was recorded in
writing, clearly acknowledged that in respect of parts of those lands, i.e.
13.65 acres, the appellant continued as a cultivating tenant. Furthermore,
G the document, Ex. P-2 also recognized that his landlord was Indira Devi.
In these circumstances, his status as cultivating tenant was unquestionable
and could not have disputed much less held not to exist by the lower
authorities.
15. The findings of the District Judge, according to learned counsel,
H that the petitioner appellant failed to establish anything beyond the written
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 553
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

documents that he continued as a cultivating tenant are unreasonable. A
Elaborating on this, it was submitted that the first respondent’s argument
was solely based on the circumstance that the construction of the
compromise petition along with an overall surrender would mean that
the appellant had surrendered some or whole of his tenancy. In the
absence of any particulars with respect to when the oral agreement
B
took place or any other document establishing that possession had been
lost, the status granted by law to the appellant who is admittedly in
possession of the lands as cultivating tenant could not have been
questioned. Learned counsel relied on Sections 14 and 15 of the Tenancy
Act, to highlight that surrender of tenancy is known to law, and can be
inferred if the procedure prescribed by law, is followed, and not otherwise. C
16. It was also argued by the amicus that the District Judge and
the High Court proceeded on an entire misappreciation of the evidence,
particularly, the documentary materials on the record. It was pointed out
that the compromise principally was to settle the disputes between the
landlords. The appellant’s participation was because he was in possession D
of the lands that were the subject matter of the inter se disputes of the
landlords. Those landlords – in effect all of them were parties to the
compromise as the appellant was. The document did not expressly record
any surrender of tenancy. In the circumstances, none of the lower
authorities could have fairly concluded that a surrender of tenancy much
less part of surrender of tenancy had taken place as was held by the E
District Court. It was also argued that the District Judge and the High
Court completely overlooked a material circumstance that Ex. P-12
covering letter by which the sum of `49,125/- was remitted as part
consideration for the sale was sought to be explained in an entirely
unconvincing manner, the Tribunal’s findings on this were categorical. F
Besides noting that the landlady virtually admitted that she wished to sell the
property, had no explanation to offer with respect to receipt of `49,125/-.
17. Mr. Potaraju highlighted and relied upon the observations of
the tribunal and that the first Respondent’s case that the said amount
was appropriated towards past arrears did not make any sense at all. In G
this regard, the tribunal’s findings that at best the arrears would have
worked out to `28,850/- and the alleged arrears of `49,125/- completely
falsified the first respondent’s case.
18. Learned counsel relied upon the provisions of Sections 14 to
16 of the Tenancy Act and submitted that both the District Judge and the H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A High Court lost sight of the fact that the appellant had never surrendered
in an overt or covert manner, his tenancy. Consequently, the protection
afforded by law as a tenant in cultivation and possession of the property
and his corresponding right to purchase a part of the property upon a
proper valuation was unquestionable.
B 19. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that the findings of
the lower court with respect to surrender of tenancy was based on the
evidence. Learned counsel highlighted that the mere mention of
subsistence of the tenancy in the compromise recorded by the court
was not sufficient to make out the appellant’s case to continue his
protected tenant status. It was argued that both the District Judge as
C well as the High Court took note of a salient circumstance which is the
sale of certain parts of land in the appellant’s favour. Furthermore, the
first respondent Indira Devi had deposed that the appellant was a retired
revenue officer and therefore versed with the procedures. In the
circumstances, the question of his being unaware of any surrender of
D tenancy did not arise.
20. Learned counsel also emphasized that the surrender of tenancy
was a matter of inference based upon appreciation of the documentary
evidence on record. This comprised not only the compromise between
the parties recorded by the Court but also the subsequent sale deeds
E executed by the parties. One set of the sale deeds was consequential in
the sense that it settled the rights of the landlords. The other, on the
other hand, dealt with the sale of certain parcels of lands which belonged
to the first respondent. Contemporaneously, as part of these transactions,
the appellant’s wife had purchased a small portion of the land. In the
circumstances, the inference drawn by the lower authorities that a part
F of the tenancy had been surrendered, was not perverse and was eminently
reasonable.
21. Learned counsel also argued that Indira Devi’s evidence was
cogent with respect to the treatment and appropriation of `49,125/- which
was towards the arrears payable for the previous years of 2002-03 and
G part of 2003-04, which had found express mention in the compromise
itself. In the circumstances, the deduction by the Tribunal that the amount
constituted part of the consideration for the agreed sale transaction in
respect of 3.93 acres, was not based on law.
22. Learned counsel relied upon the findings of the District Judge,
H as affirmed by the High Court to say that the express stipulation in Section
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 555
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

14 of the Tenancy Act which barred the relief, of priority of purchase of A
a cultivating tenant are clearly attracted to the facts of this case because
the transactions which were concededly part of the record evidenced
that a part of the tenancy had been surrendered. In fact, the first
respondent Indira Devi’s claim was that the entire tenancy had been
surrendered through an oral arrangement. She supported that fully in the
B
course of her oral deposition. For these reasons, urged learned counsel,
the present appeals should not be allowed and the findings of the lower
authority as well as the High Court should be left undisturbed.
Analysis and reasoning
23. Before proceeding with the merits of the parties’ contentions, C
it would be essential to extract the relevant portions of the Tenancy Act.
They are as follows:
“14. Surrender of holding by cultivating tenant (Substituted
by Section 11 Act No. 39 of 1974) :-(1) A cultivating tenant
may terminate his tenancy and surrender his holding at the D
end of any agricultural year after giving to the landlord and
the Special Officer at least three months’ notice expiring with
the end of such agricultural year: and the surrender of such
holding shall take effect only after it is accepted by the Special
Officer on being satisfied, after making such inquiry as he
E
thinks fit, that such surrender is voluntary and genuine:
Provided that where any holding is cultivated jointly by joint
tenants of members of a Hindu undivided family, unless the
surrender is made by all of them, it shall be ineffective in
respect of such joint tenants or members as have not joined F
in the notice for surrender.
(2) No tenant shall surrender a part of his holding only.
15. Cultivating tenant’s right to first purchase the land leased
to him (Sub. by S. 10 of Act No. 39 of 1974) :—(1) Any landlord
intending to sell the land leased to a cultivating tenant shall G
first give notice to such cultivating tenant, of his intention to
sell such land, and requiring him to exercise his option to
purchase the land. The particulars to be specified in the notice
and the time within which the option shall be exercised by
cultivating tenant shall be such as may be prescribed. H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A (2) If the cultivating tenant exercises his option to purchase
the land there is an agreement between the landlord and his
cultivating tenant in regard to the price payable, the landlord
shall sell the land to such cultivating tenant in accordance
with such agreement.
B (3) Where the cultivating tenant exercise his option to purchase
the land; but there is no agreement in regard to the price
payable, the landlord or the cultivating tenant may apply to
the Special Officer for the determination of reasonable price
of such land; and the Special Officer shall, after giving notice
C to the landlord, and the cultivating tenant and after making
such enquiry as he thinks fit, determine the reasonable price;
Provided that the reasonable price so determined shall not
exceed five times, the fair rent, if any fixed after the
commencement of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy
D (Amendment) Act, 1974 and in force in respect of that land;
or where no such fair rent has been fixed or is in force, five
times the fair rent that would have been so fixed, has an
application been made for determination of such rent on the
date of giving of notice under sub-section (1).
E (4) The reasonable price determined under sub-section (3)
shall be payable in ten equal annual instalments in such
manner as may be prescribed; and the sale shall be deemed
to have become effective on the payment of the first instalment
and land shall be deemed to be the security for the payment
of the balance of the instalments.
F
(5) If the cultivating tenant fails to exercise his option to
purchase the land or fails to pay the first instalment of the
reasonable price, the landlord shall be entitled to sell the land
to any other person.
G Provided that where the land is not sold toanyother person
withina period of two years from the date of notice given
under sub-section (1),the landlord shall not sell the land
thereafter without giving a fresh option under this section to
the cultivating tenant to purchase the land.
H
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 557
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

(6) Any sale of the land by the landlord in violation of this A
section shall be voidable to the option of the cultivating
tenant).”
16. Adjudication of disputes and appeal (Subs. by Section 13
of Act No. 39 of 1974) :—(1) Any dispute arising under this
Act, between a landlord and a cultivating tenant in relation B
to a matter not otherwise decide by the Special Officer under
the provisions of this Act, shall, on application by the landlord
or the cultivating tenant, as the case may be, be decided by
the Special Officer after making an enquiry in the manner
prescribed.
C
(2) Against any order passed by the Special Officer under
this Act an appeal shall lie to the District Judge having
jurisdiction, within thirty days of the passing of the order;
and the decision of the District Judge on such appeal shall
be final].
D
24. The undisputed facts are that Tummala Narasaiah, father of
T. Suryanarayana, T. Satyanarayana, T. Seshagiri Rao, and Indira Devi’s
husband, (late Veeraiah) owned the scheduled property. T.
Satyanarayana, T. Suryanarayana and T. Seshagiri Rao were residing in
U.S.A.T. Suryanarayanaexecuted a general power of attorney
E
constituting the first respondent, Indira Devi during the life time of her
husband, Dr. Veeraiah. The properties were divided by their father; the
revenue records recognized the same and issued pattadar pass books
and title deeds in their names in the year 1994-95. The appellant used to
manage the properties during Narasaiah’s (father of the said four brothers)
lifetime.After the death of Narasaiah, the appellant used to pay the F
maktha to his sons.Dr. Veeraiahdied on 4.2.2002 executing a will in
respect of all his properties situated at Mulukuduru and other places,
favouring his wife, Indira Devi. Shebecame the absolute owner of all
the properties including the lands in A, B, C and D schedules.The four
brothers thus were landlords and the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (including
G
the appellant) were tenants under the provisions of the Tenancy Act,
1956.
25. Disputes between the landlords, i.e. sons of Narasaiah
(including the first respondent and her brothers-in-law) led to institution
of proceedings. Further, the appellant had initiated proceedings claiming
H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A injunction to prevent injury to his property; the first respondent had filed
proceedings alleging default in payment of rent, by the appellant. All
these disputes were settled during pendency of the proceedings, by the
parties. A joint application for recording of compromise, was made. The
relevant extracts of the order passed by the jurisdictional tribunal, in this
context, are as follows:
B
“Brief allegations made in the petition, are as follows:
a) One Tummala Narasaiah is the father of the 2nd petitioner,
5th respondent, husband of the first petitioner namely late
Veeraiah and one T. Seshagiri Rao, and he owned and
C possessed the schedule property. The second petitioner, fifth
respondent and their brother T. Seshagiri Rao are residing in
U.S.A. The second Petitioner T. Suryanarayana executed
general power of attorney in favour of the first petitioner
during the life time of T. Narasaiah, he got divided the
properties among all his four sons. The revenue records also
D recognized the same and issued pattadar pass Books and title
deeds in their name in the year 1994-95. He used to manage
the properties during his lifetime. Even during his life time
and after his death, they used to pay the maktha to Narasaiah
till his death and to his sons after his death. The first
E Petitioner’s husband Dr. Veeraiah died on 4.2.2002 executing
a will in respect of all his properties situated at Mulukuduru
and other places, and as such, she became the absolute owner
of all the properties including the lands in A, B C and D
schedules. Therefore, the petitioners, fifth respondent and T.
Seshagiri Rao are the landlords and the Respondent Nos. 1
F to 4 are the tenants under the provisions of the A.P.(A.A)
Tenancy Act, 1956.
XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
(c) The Respondent No.1 is the cultivating tenant of the land
G of Ac 13.65 cents, secondrespondent is the cultivating tenant
of Ac 4.17 cents, third respondent is thecultivating tenant of
Ac 1.37 cents and fourth respondent in the cultivating tenant
ofAc 1.00 which are shown as A, B, C and D schedule
properties respectively. Theyare neither evicted from the
holdings nor they surrendered the holding either wholly or
H
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 559
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

partly either to fifth Respondent or to the petitioners and T. A
Seshagiri Rao at anypoint of time. So, the respondents 1 to 4
are liable to pay the petitioners andT. Seshagiri Rao’s 3/4th
share out of the agreed maktha due for theyear2002-2003
and also due during the years 2003-2005. The first respondent
paid the first Petitioner Rs. 11,450/ under receipt, dated
B
1.6.2002 towards her 1/4th share for the year 2001-2002.
He also paid Rs. 18510/- to fifth respondent by way of pay
order of Syndicate Bank, Mulukuduru on 30.5.2002 which
amount includes also lease amount due for his wife’s land.
The respondent nos. 3 & 4 did not pay any amount to the
petitioners and Dr. T. Seshagiri Rao their 3/4th shares in C
agreed makthas due in the year 2001-2002. The petitioners
came to know that the respondents 2 to 4 agreed to pay the
entire maktha as due for B, C and D schedule lands while
they have been cultivating, to the fifth Respondent this year
and also to deposit the total maktha amounts due for the said
D
holdings in future years in Syndicate Bank, Mulukuduru in
fifth respondent’s personal account No.3617. Thus, there have
been disputes between the petitioners- land-lords and
respondents-tenants. Hence, the petition.
3. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.641/2002 for temporary
E
injunction prohibiting the respondents 1 to 4 from paying the
maktha due towards their share in the A, B, C and D schedule
land to the respondents 5 and 6 for the last year 2001-2002
and in future years also pending disposal of the main petition.
4. The Respondent No.1 herein i.e. Musunuri Satyanarayana
F
also filed a suit in O.S.No.174/2002 against the Defendant
Nos.1 to 7 therein for permanent injunction restraining them,
their men, agents, associates, assignees, followers and
confederates from in any way interfering with and or causing
obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaint schedule lands as tenant thereof. Further, the G
Respondent No.1 herein also filed ATC.3/2002 against the
landlords i.e. the Petitioners herein, fifth respondent and his
brother T. Seshagiri Rao for declaration that he is the
cultivating tenant of the petition schedule property therein
and that his tenancy is subsisting and also for interim
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A injunction restraining the Respondent No.1 and his men,
associates, agents, power of attorney holders if any from in
any way interfering or causing obstruction in any way to the
petitioner’s tenancy rights in the petition schedule land.
5. During the pendency of the I.A.No.641/2002 filed by
B Petitioners, for temporary injunction, a compromise took place
between all the parties and the compromise agreement, dated
25.7.2002 was also filed. As all the parties were present in
the court hall and all of them accepted that the contents of
the compromise agreement are true and correct and they have
no objection to record the compromise and the same was
C
recorded, accordingly. In view of the said compromise, the
Respondent No.1 herein has not pressed the O.S.No.174/2002
and the tenancy petition in A.T.C.3/2002 and they were
dismissed. As per the terms of compromise agreement, the wet
lands to the extent of Ac 7.04 in S.No.56/2, wet land of Ac
D 0.10 cents in Dl.No.56/3, extent of Ac 0.36 cents in D.No.65/
5 T wet land of Ac 1.89 cents in D.No.473/3 and wet land to
the extent of Ac 1.37 cents in D.No.25, in total Ac 10.76 cents
of wet land was fallen to the share of the petitioners and the
remaining extent of the lands situated in other survey numbers
were fallen to the shares of the fifth respondent- T.
E
Satyanarayana and his brother T. Seshagiri Rao. Further, as
per the terms of the compromise agreement, the Respondent
No.1 herein shall continue as the cultivating tenant for the
lands fallen to the share of the petitioners. Thus, from the
said compromise petition, it is obvious that the first respondent
F has to pay the maktha in respect of the lands as mentioned
above, to the petitioners and the petitioners are no way
concerned with the lands fallen to the share of the fifth
respondent and his brother.
6. Since the compromise took place between the parties and
G since as per the said compromise, first respondent has to
continue his tenancy in respect of the lands fallen to the share
of the petitioners, I as inclined to declare that the lease between
the petitioners and the first respondent is subsisting in respect
of the lands fallen to the share of the petitioners. Since, in the
petition, there is no allegation made against the first
H
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 561
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

respondent that he is ready to pay then maktha either to the A
fifth respondent or to the sixth respondent herein and since
as per the agreement, the Respondent No.1 agreed to pay the
maktha to the petitioners in respect of the lands fallen to their
shares, I am not inclined to grant any injunction.
7. In the result, the petition is allowed without costs in terms B
of the compromises, declaring that the lease between the
petitioners and the first respondent is subsisting and dismissing
the relief of suitable injunction is dismissed.”
26. A plain reading of the above extracts establishes that, (a) the
sharing of properties, between the landlords, was re-arranged; (b) the
C
status of the tenants including the present appellant, was reiterated,
in more than one place; and (c) the relationship of landlord and tenant, in
respect of different properties, was arranged, keeping in mind the
compromise by the landlord parties. The operative part of the order,
recording compromise between the appellant/ tenant, and the landlords
clearly stated that D
“the petition is allowed without costs in terms of the
compromises, declaring that the lease between the petitioners
and the first respondent.”
27. The compromise is a matter of record, and could not be disputed;
it was recorded by the Special officer, on 29-07-02 in A.T.C. 5/02. It E
was produced by the appellant, before the tribunal in the present case.
The declaration of subsistence of the tenancy, having regard to the share
of the first respondent (Indira Devi) and Suryanarayana was to the extent
of 10-76 acres. Crucially, the Special Officer’s order declared that the
tenancy had to be continued.
F
28. The appellant had urged before the tribunal that in 2003, the
first respondent had agreed to sell the property, 3.93 acres, for `1,25,000/
-, payable in nine instalments. He urged that a part payment of `49,125/
- through a demand draft dated 26-09-2003 issued by Syndicate Bank,
Mulukuduru was made to the first respondent, who appropriated the
amounts. G
29. When the appellant approached the tribunal for various reliefs,
it was contended by the first respondent that he had surrendered his
tenancy pursuant to an oral agreement and that having lost his status as
tenant, he could not claim recourse to the provisions enabling a tenant to
purchase property, i.e. Section 15. 30. The statement of objects of the H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A Tenancy Act show that it was enacted with a view to protecting tenants
who were then in possession of agricultural lands from unjust eviction.
Initially, an ordinance was promulgated; that was later replaced by an
Act providing for permanent measures of tenancy reform. The statement
of objects of the amendment, of 1974, through which certain provisions
were introduced, shows that the legislature provided for the regulation
B
of the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord, the prescription of a
minimum period for agricultural leases, and other incidental matters, as
well as special provisions prescribing that (i) all leases should be for a
minimum period of six years and should be automatically renewable
successively for further minimum periods of six years except where the
C landlord wishes to resume his land for personal cultivation and (ii) that
the cultivating tenant should have a right of first preference in the
purchase of the land under his tenancy if the landlord wishes to sell it.
31. The provisions of Tenancy Act reveal that under Section 4 of
the Act, every landlord and his cultivating tenant have to agree in regard
D to the form of tenancy, in particular whether the rent shall be paid in the
form of a share in the produce or in the form of a fixed rent in kind, or in
the form of a fixed rent in cash. Such agreement cannot be altered
during the currency of the lease except by mutual agreement of the
parties. By Section 5 of the amending Act No. 39 of 1974, the sentence
‘during the currency of the lease’ stood omitted with effect from 01-07-
E 1980. In terms of an amendment to Section 10 of the Act, every lease
subsisting at the commencement of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1974 is deemed to be in perpetuity. Section
13 of the Act enacts that, notwithstanding anything contained in Sections
10, 11 and 12, a landlord cannot terminate the tenancy and evict his
F cultivating tenant except by an application made in that behalf to the
Special Officer on the grounds mentioned in that section and if the
cultivating tenant intends to surrender his tenancy the procedure
prescribed by Section 14 of the Act has to be followed.
32. In Adapala Subbaiah vs. Shaik Hasan Saheb 6 the
G importance and imperative nature of the procedure prescribed for
surrender of tenancy, by a tenant, was explained by the High Court, in
the following terms:
“As per that Section 14, surrender of holding by a tenant can
only be at the end of any agricultural year, after giving his

H 6
2007(4) ALT 54
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 563
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

landlord and the Special Officer at least three months’ notice A
expiring with the end of such agricultural year. ‘Agricultural
year’ is defined in Section 2(a) of the Act as the year
commencing on the 1st day of June or such other date as may
be notified by the Government in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette
in respect of any locality having regard to the usage or custom
B
of the locality in respect of the commencement of agricultural
operations therein. If the respondent really had cultivated the
land of appellant and had vacated the same in 1981-82, in
view of Section 14 of the Act, he should have given a notice
in March 1981 both to the appellant and the Special Officer
intimating them about his intention to vacate the land. It is C
not even the case of appellant that any such notice was given
by the respondent. When the tenancy Act confers special rights
including the right to purchase the land is given to the tenant,
no ordinary prudent tenant would vacate the land that too
without following the procedure prescribed in the Act.
D
Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the respondent
took the land on lease for only one year and vacated it at the
end of the year is difficult to be believed.”
33. The above view had been previously echoed in the judgment
reported as Mygapula Venkateswara Rao vs. Ponangi Venkataraju7
in the following terms: E
“This requirement of giving notice before three months is
stipulated with a view to safeguard the interests of the tenant
So long as the surrender as contemplated under Section 14
of the Act has not been completed and final order has been
passed in pursuance of an oral or written agreement if any F
entered into between the landlord and the tenant, it cannot
be said to be a final one. Unless and until final order has
been passed with regard to the surrender by the Special Officer
under Section 14 of the Act, the relationship of landlord and
tenant cannot be said to have been extinguished.” G
34. Again, in Badugu Venkata Durga Rao and Ors. vs. Surneni
Lakshmi8 the importance of following the procedure, under Section 14
and its mandatory content, was reiterated. This court had, in the past,
7
1990 (1) APLJ (HC) 466
8
2001 (1) ALT115 H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A examined and interpreted identical terms of the law in the erstwhile
state of Bombay i.e. the Section 15 of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 19489, in Vallabbhai Nathabhai vs. Baijivi &
Ors. 10
“3. Under Section 15 (1) a tenant, as defined by Section 2
B (18) of the Act, can terminate the tenancy in respect of the
land held by him as a tenant by surrendering his interest in
favour of his landlord and as provided by Sub-section (2) on
such surrender of the tenancy the landlord becomes entitled
to retain the land so surrendered by the tenant in the same
manner as when the tenancy is terminated under Sections 31
C and 31A of the Act. The tenancy on such surrender comes to
an end and thereupon the relationship between them of a
landlord and a tenant and the rights arising out of that
relationship terminate. The Legislature, however, was aware
of the possibility of landlords taking advantage over the
D tenants and therefore to safeguard the tenants against such a
possibility, it laid down through the proviso that a surrender
by a tenant could only be valid and binding on him if it was
in writing and was verified by the Mamlatdar. Before the
Mamlatdar would verify such surrender it would be his duty
to ascertain whether the surrender was voluntary and was
E not under pressure or undue influence of the landlord. But

9
The relevant portion of Section 15, which is in pari materia with Section 14 of the
Tenancy Act, in this case, reads as follows:
“15.Termination of tenancy by surrender thereof. - (1) A tenant may terminate the
tenancy in respect of any land at any time by surrendering his interest therein in favour
F of the landlord:
Provided that such surrender shall be in writing, and verified before the Mamlatdar in
the prescribed manner.
(2) Where a tenant surrenders his tenancy, the landlord shall be entitled to retain the
land so surrendered for the like purposes, and to the like extent, and in so far as the
conditions are applicable subject to the like conditions, as are provided in sections 31
and 31A for the termination of tenancies.
G [(2A) The Mamlatdar shall in respect of the surrender verified under sub-section (1),
hold an inquiry and decide whether the landlord is entitled under sub-section (2) to
retain the whole or any portion of the land so surrendered, and specify the extent and
particulars in that behalf.”
10
[1969] 3 SCR 309 (this decision was followed in Polisetti Venkata Subbaiah vs.
Karre Venkata Prasad & Ors. 1998 (1) ALT 79 in relation to Section 14 of the Tenancy
H Act- in the present case).
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 565
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

once the surrender satisfies these two conditions it has the A
same effect as the termination of tenancy: the tenancy comes
to an end and the landlord becomes entitled to retain the land
of which possession is delivered to him by the tenant
surrendering his interest as a tenant therein. In cases, however,
where the surrender has not satisfied the two conditions, even
B
if it is voluntary, it is no surrender and therefore there is no
termination of relationship of a landlord and tenant.”
35. An identical view was expressed by a Full Bench of the Bombay
High Court, in Madhao Tatya Sonar v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Nagpur & Ors11 whilst interpreting provisions of Sections 20 and 36
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act (Bom. C
XCIX of 1958). Again, later, in Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs
Govind Joti Chavare12 the primacy, and imperative nature of such
provisions was underlined, by this Court in the following terms:
“It will be seen from a combined reading of these provisions
that a surrender of tenancy by a tenant in order to be valid D
and effective must fulfil these requirements : (1) It must be in
writing. (2) It must be verified before the Mamlatdar. (3) While
making such verification the Mamlatdar must satisfy himself
in regard to two things, namely, (a) that the tenant understands
the nature and consequences of the, surrender, and (b) that it E
is voluntary. (4). The Mamlatdar must endorse his finding as
to such satisfaction upon the document of surrender.
*********** *********** ***********
Next point to be considered is, what is the consequence of
noncompliance with this mandatory procedure ? A century F
ago, in Taylor v. Taylor(1876 Ch.D 426), Jassel M. R. adopted
the rule that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a
certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all
and that other methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden. This rule has stood the test of time. It was applied G
by the Privy Council, in Nazir Ahmed v Emperor (AIR 1936 P.
C. 253) and later by this Court in several cases (Shiv Bahadur
Singh v. State of U. P. [1954] 1 S.C.R. 1098; Deep Chand v

11
1970 Mh. L.J. 991
12
1975 (3) SCR 839 H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A State of Rajasthan [1962] S.C.R. 662), to a Magistrate making
a record under Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898. This rule squarely applies “where, indeed,
the whole aim and object of the legislature would be plainly
defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner
did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other.( Maxwell’s
B
Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., pp, 362-363). The rule
will be attracted with full force in the present case because
non-verification of the surrender in the requisite manner would
frustrate the very purpose of this provision. Intention of the
legislature to prohibit the verification of the surrender in a
C manner other than the one prescribed, is implied in these
provisions. Failure to comply with these mandatory provisions,
therefore, had vitiated the surrender and rendered it non-
est…”
36. Thus, as a matter of law, the requirement of notice for the
D prescribed period of three months, to the landlord, and the concerned
revenue official is mandatory. This provision, in the form of a procedure
enacted for the welfare and protection of a tenant (like the appellant)
has to be construed in its literal and plain terms. The material phrase in
Section 14 (1) in the present case is that “the surrender of such holding
shall take effect only after it is accepted by the Special Officer on
E being satisfied, after making suchinquiry as he thinks fit, that such
surrender is voluntary and genuine.” This reinforces the conclusion
that not following the prescribed procedure, invalidates the so-called
surrender. Therefore, the twin conditions that make a valid surrender of
tenancy are firstly, three months’ notice in writing to the landlord, and
F the Special Officer about the intention to surrender the tenancy, and
secondly, satisfaction recorded by the Special Officer in an order, after
due inquiry about the voluntary nature of the surrender of tenancy. Neither
Indira Devi nor the other contesting respondents (who purchased the
lands from her) pleaded or proved that notice in writing was issued to
them by the appellant, followed by inquiry conducted by the Special
G Officer, culminating in an order accepting such alleged surrender.
Therefore, clearly, the findings of the District Judge and the High Court,
regarding surrender (either in part or fully) of the tenancy, are wholly
untenable.
37. This court is also of the opinion that the findings recorded by
H the High Court and the District Court, as regards lack of evidence of
MUSUNURI SATYANARAYANA v. DR. TIRUMALA INDIRA DEVI 567
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

subsisting tenancy in favour of the appellant are contrary to the record. A
The order passed in the compromise petition, clearly recorded, in more
than one place, that the lease between the appellant on the one hand,
and Indira Devi, on the other, was subsisting and continuing. Being an
admitted document, recording an incontrovertible fact, the burden was
upon the respondents to prove that the appellant’s tenancy had been
B
terminated, or surrendered in a manner known to law. They plainly failed
to do so. As a result, the finding regarding surrender of tenancy is
erroneous.
38. The next issue is with respect to the agreement to purchase
the scheduled lands. Here, the appellant had, in his petition, claiming
C
various reliefs, contended that Indira Devi, for herself and as G.P.A of T.
Suryanarayana orally offered to him to sell the lands in measuring 10.76
acres. He accepted the offer to purchase 3.57 acres (in D.No.56/2
belonging to T. Suryanarayana), 3.47 acres (in the same D.No.56/2)
0.10 acres (in D. No. 56/3), and 0.36 acres (in D.No.65/5B) belonging
Indira Devi on instalment basis @ `1,25,000/- per acre. It was argued D
that this was agreed during negotiations between him and Indira Devi
after payment of agreed maktha for the year 2002/03. He had also relied
on the fact that in consideration of Indira Devi’s request the appellant
paid full sale consideration in the shape of advance of `16,500/- in cash
and `1,80,000/- by demand draft (No. 187502, Dated. 30-06-2003) and
E
advance of `45,500/- and `2,05,000/- in the shape of demand draft No.
187501, dated. 30-06-03 on behalf of his wife M. Rajamohini which
resulted in execution of the sale deeds Ex. P 15 and P.16 at the agreed
rate of `1,25,000/- per acre. These were incontrovertible facts, because
the particulars of the demand drafts, and the registered sale deeds, were
exhibited during the proceedings. Having regard to these facts, his further F
case was that a sum of `49, 125/- was paid as first of the nine instalments,
the balance being `4, 42,000/-. Ex. P-12 was the covering letter enclosing
a demand draft dated 26-09-2003 issued by Syndicate Bank, Mulukuduru.
That document categorically referred to the sale transaction, clearly
spelling out that the amount was towards an instalment payable as
G
consideration for purchase of property.
39. In the light of these facts, the first respondent’s stand was
that the amount was appropriated towards maktha or rent for a part of
the previous period. The tribunal held that the explanation for appropriation
was untenable, because no notice (as required by express provisions of
H
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A the Tenancy Act) had been issued; more importantly, in terms of the
appellant’s pleadings, the rent was `5,000/- per acre, which meant that
the arrears, at best would have been `28,850/-. As in the case of Section
14, the law recognizes that a tenant can face eviction, if she or he fails to
deposit rent. There was no specific pleading as to the period for which
rents were defaulted by the appellant. On the other hand, the notice was
B
produced (Ex. P-12) to establish that the amount paid was towards
consideration. In the absence of a similar notice setting out with
particulars of the rent payable as well as the period, the District Judge
and the High Court could not have upset the order of the tribunal as
regards the appellant’s exercise of right to purchase the property, under
C Section 15.
40. For the above reasons, the impugned order of the High Court,
as well as the judgment of the District Court, are hereby set aside. The
order of the Tribunal13, is hereby restored. This Court hereby records its
appreciation for the assistance given by Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, the amicus
D appointed in this case. The appeals are allowed in these terms, without
order on costs.

Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.

E

F

G

13
Special Officer for A.P. Tenancy Tribunal-Cum-Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Punnur in
H A.T.C. NO. 2/2003 dated 30.11.2009.