ORDER
V. Bhaskara Rao, J.
1. The revision petition is filed under Section 91 of A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the order of the Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy in Case No. C3/154/76, dated 9-3-1992 confirming the order of the Tahsildar, Siddipet in Case No. A5/3740/74 dated 17-4-1976, permitting the protected tenants to withdraw surrender petition filed under Section 19 of the Act. The landlord is the revision petitioner and respondents herein are the legal representatives of the original protected tenant by name I. Pochaiah s/o Yellaiah.
2. The facts that give rise to this revision petition are that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are sons of the protected tenant filed a petition under Section 19 of the Act on 21-2-1966 before the Tahsildar, Siddipet surrendering their rights of protected Tenancy on the lands bearing Survey Nos. 1131, 1132 and 1133 admeasuring Ac. 12-27 guntas situated at Dubbak Village of Medak District. The Tahsildar recorded their sworn statements where they admitted that they voluntarily surrendered their rights out of their own free will. They were also represented by an Advocate. Thereafter they filed a petition on 3-3-1966 seeking to withdrew their surrender petition filed on 21-2-1966. The respondent No. 3, who is the daughter of the protected Tenant, also filed a petition seeking sanction of succession in her favour to the extent of her share in the lands. The Tahsildar closed the case in default of appearance of the respondents herein on 14-10-1971. The respondent No. 1 filed another petition seeking restoration of case on 4-11-1971 but the Tahsildar did not restore the same. Then they preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer at Sangareddy in Case No. C3/12/72 which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar, Siddipet for fresh enquiry and disposal. Thus, the Tahsildar, Siddipet reopened the case in file No. A5/3740/74 and after enquiry he allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein and ordered that the protected Tenant be continued on land and also granted succession under Section 40 of the Act in favour of the heirs of the deceased protected tenant. Aggrieved by the above order, the landlord preferred an appeal to the Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy.
3. The learned Joint Collector has considered all the facts of the case and held that although the surrender petition has been filed, another petition for withdrawal of the same was also filed and that such withdrawal application is maintainable when no decision has been taken on the surrender application. Accordingly, the landlord’s appeal has been dismissed observing that the landlord has no right to force the surrender. Hence this revision petition.
4. Sri R. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, strenuously contended that the surrender petition filed by the respondents satisfies all the requirements of the proviso to Section 19(1) of the Act, so much so that it is in writing and the protected tenants have admitted that they have surrendered their rights out of their own volition and accordingly the Tahsildar has recorded the sworn statements and that being so, no further action was either contemplated by law or the Tahsildar, was expected to do anything more than recording his satisfaction. He, therefore, contended that there was no ground for permitting the protected tenants to withdraw their surrender petition when they have not assigned any reasons for withdrawal and that the Joint Collector has not viewed the matter in its correct perspective. He, therefore, urged that the revision petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.
5. All the four respondents are served and they have also entered appearance through a Counsel, but none appeared for the respondents.
6. I carefully considered the contentions raised by Sri R. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-landlord. Section 19(1) of the Act, so far as it relates to the surrender of tenancy rights is extracted below for ready reference.
“Termination of tenancy : (1) Notwithstanding any agreement or usage or any decree or order of a Court of law, but subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), no Tenancy of land shall be terminated before the expiration of the period for which the land is leased or deemed to be leased otherwise than-
*(a) by the tenant by surrender of his rights to the landholder at least a month before the commencement of the year:
Provided that such surrender is made by the tenant in writing and is admitted by him before and is made in good faith to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar ; or
Provided further that where the land is cultivated jointly by joint tenants or members of an undivided Hindu family, unless the surrender is made by all of them, it shall be ineffective in respect of such joint tenants as have not joined in the application for surrender, irrespective of the fact that the names of all the joint tenants are not mentioned in the certificate) :
(b) by the landholder on a ground specified in sub-section (2)”
7. It is noteworthy that the proviso is added by an amendment to the Act in the year 1954 and it came into force on 4-2-1954. Prior to the amendment the protected tenant could have even surrendered his rights orally and by putting the landlord in possession but the same has been given a go-by and the surrender in writing before the concerned Tahsildar, is made compulsory under the proviso. Sub-section 1(a) of the Act requires that the surrender should be made at least a month before the commencement of the year. The ‘year’ is defined under Section 2(y) as, any year ending on 30th day of June ……………………..The surrender in this case was on 21-2-1966; it was in writing before the concerned Tahsildar and protected tenants have stated in their sworn statements, recorded by the Tahsildar, that they surrendered their rights voluntarily and out of their own volition and the Tahsildar has also recorded his satisfaction. These are all the requirements contemplated by Section 19 of the Act and I fail to understand as to what other follow-up action was required or contemplated by the Act. The follow-up action, if any, would be to make necessary changes in the protected tenancy register which is only an idle formality and a clerical job. The learned Joint Collector is, therefore, wrong in holding that a protected tenant is entitled to withdraw his surrender petition since no decision was taken on the surrender petition. In fact, no decision as such is called for in such cases except to record the sworn statements admitting the factum of surrender. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from an apparent error and hence this revision petition has to be allowed.
8. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy in Case No. C3/154/76, dated 9-3-1992, is set aside and it is ordered that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein have voluntarily surrendered their protected tenancy rights in favour of the revision petitioner on 21-2-1966 to the satisfaction of the Tahsildar, Siddipet. There will be no order as to costs.