BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 6126/2010 (Sudhakar Paikanna Yerawar & Ors. v. Padma Lachma Kulmethe) & Ors.

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 7 . , 2011 By this petition, the petitioner impugns the concurrent orders passed by the authorities under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The petitioners are the landlords. They had filed an application before the Tahsildar, Rajura for termination of the tenancy of the respondents and for restoration of possession on the ground that the respondent had committed default in payment of rent in spite of due service of notice under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1950. It was the case of the petitioners that the original tenant Lachma and the respondents, his legal heirs, had not paid rent from 1996 onwards till 2000. The respondents denied the case of the petitioners and pleaded that they did not have any intention of not paying the rent to the petitioners but the petitioners had refused to accept the money orders issued to them.

Hence, according to the respondents, after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities, the rent was deposited by the respondents before the Tahsildar and in such circumstances, 2 the application filed by the petitioners for termination of tenancy and restoration of possession was liable to be dismissed. All the three authorities relied on the oral and the documentary evidence on record and specially considered the copies of the challans, the money orders, the acknowledgment slips and the copies of the reply to the notice to hold that the landlords had refused to accept the rent and, hence, the same was rightly deposited by the respondents-tenants before the Tahsildar. The authorities came to a conclusion that the respondents had not defaulted in making the payment of rent and the tenancy of the respondents could not have been terminated on the ground of non-payment of rent as pleaded by the petitioners.

The findings recorded by all the authorities under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the documents on record, which clearly showed that the rent was properly paid by the respondents before the Tahsildar after the petitioners refused to accept the rent by money orders. Since the findings recorded by all the authorities are just and proper, they call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE