Order- The third respondent-Cultivating tenant was inducted into possession of Survey No. 350/1 admeasuring Acre 7-4C cents wet situate at Katravulapalli village, Peddapuram taluk, East Godavari District belonging to Sree Venkateswara Swami Vari temple of that village, by the temple authorities on 15th August, 1966, when he gave the highest bid of 110 bags of paddy per annum for faslis 1376 to 1381 at a public auction held in respect of those lands. An application under section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter called "the Act’‘) for fixation of fair rent at 33 bags of paddy per year, was filed by the cultivating tenant before the Tahsildar, Peddapuram on 14th December, 1966. The application was contested by the petitioner. The tenant examined himself as P.W.1, the neighbouring land-owners P.Ws. 2 and 3 and P.W. 4, the village karnam, in support of his case. The petitioner herein examined R.W. 1, who participated in the auction offering 105 bags per annum to the lands in question and R. W. 2, the executive officer of the temple and filed Exhibit R-1, public auction sale list, Exhibit R-2 a copy of Exhibit R-21 in O.S. No. 54 of 1961 on the Sub-Court, Kakinada and Exhibit R-3 which the price of the paddy in the year 1915 in support of his plea that the rent of no bags offered by the tenant at the public auction was fair and proper. The Tahsildar, on a consideration of the entire evidence, oral and documentary, adduced before him, has fixed the fair rent at 80 bags of paddy per year, i.e., 55½ bags for the first crop and 24½ bags for Summer crop. Aggrieved by that order, appeals have been preferred by the landlord as well as the tenant to the Revenue Divisional Officer who dismissed the appeal preferred by the temple and partly allowed the appeal preferred by the tenant and fixed the fair rent at 44 bags per annum. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Sree Venugopala Reddy, for the petitioner, contends that the application for fixation of fair rent under section 6 of the Act on 14th December, 1966, is not maintainable in view of the coming into force of the Act XVII of 1966, and that the Tribunals’ approach to the point at issue is illegal and erroneous. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Sree Venugopala Reddy, for the petitioner, contends that the application for fixation of fair rent under section 6 of the Act on 14th December, 1966, is not maintainable in view of the coming into force of the Act XVII of 1966, and that the Tribunals’ approach to the point at issue is illegal and erroneous. Sri Raghava Rao, for the respondent-tenant, opposed the claim of the petitioner contending inter alia that the plea relating to want of jurisdiction for the Tribunals to fix fair rent is belated and is not permissible at this stage and there is no merit in this writ petition. 3. Upon the facts and circumstances and the contentions raised, the following two questions arise for decision: (1) Where the impugned orders of the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer are liable to be quashed on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to entertain the application to fix fair rent? (2) Whether the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal and liable to be set aside? 4. With regard to the question No. 1, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Avula Hanuma Reddy v. Sri Pushpagiri Mutt1, that the provisions of the Tenancy Act, a Special Act, are applicable even to the lands owned by or endowed to the religious or charitable institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the tenancy will continue to subsist under the same terms by virtue of section 10 of the Act subject to fixation of reasonable rent by the Committee appointed under Act XVII of 1966. The Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer have no jurisdiction to entertain the application for fixation of fair rent in respect of temple lands. But this point cannot be permitted to be raised for more than one reason. Firstly it was not taken before the Tahsildar, or the Revenue Divisional Officer, or in the original writ petition, but was raised for the first time only at the time of the hearing of the petition. Secondly no Committee has so far been constituted under the Act XVII of 1966 to fix reasonable rent in respect of the lands belonging to the temple. Hence, this preliminary objection cannot be entertained at this stage. 5. Secondly no Committee has so far been constituted under the Act XVII of 1966 to fix reasonable rent in respect of the lands belonging to the temple. Hence, this preliminary objection cannot be entertained at this stage. 5. I shall now turn to the submission of Sri Venugopala Reddy that the orders of the the Revenue Divisional Officer are liable to be quashed as he did not keep in view the presumption under section 6 (3) of the Act in determining the fair rent in the present case. It is useful at this stage to refer to the intendment of the Act and the provisions of section 6. The primary intendment of the Act is to provide for the payment of fair rent by the cultivating tenants and to fix a minimum period of leases in respect of agricultural holdings. Hence, a machinery to redress the grievance of either the landlord or the cultivating tenant in fixation of fair rent notwithstanding any agreement between them, has been provided under section 6. Sub-section (2) requires the Tahsildar after the receipt of the application to make an enquiry in the prescribed manner and determine the fair rent taking into account the factors specified in clauses (a) to (g) of that sub-section. Sub-section (3), which is material for our purpose, reads thus: “In determining the fair rent, the Tahsildar shall presume, until the contrary is proved, that the agreed rent payable in respect of the holding is the fair rent.” Under sub-section (3) to section 6, the Tahsildar, is an enquiry to determine the fair rent in respect of an agricultural holding, shall presume that the agreed rent is the fair rent. The use of the expression “shall” in sub-section (3) makes it obligatory on the part of the Tahsildar to proceed on the basis that the agreed rent is the fair rent. The statutory presumption enacted under sub-section (3) to section 6 is not an absolute but a rebuttable presumption. The language of the provisions of section 6(3) manifests that the agreed rent has to be presumed for all practical purposes to be the fair rent until the contrary is proved by either party. The party who challenges the agreed rent as not fair, must establish his case by independent evidence. The language of the provisions of section 6(3) manifests that the agreed rent has to be presumed for all practical purposes to be the fair rent until the contrary is proved by either party. The party who challenges the agreed rent as not fair, must establish his case by independent evidence. The Tribunal, therefore, is bound to start with the assumption, that the agreed rent was the fair rent and consider the evidence adduced by the parties in the light of the statutory presumption. The Tribunal may advert to the factor whether the agreed rent was fixed out of free volition or due to any compulsion, duress undue influence or misrepresentation. The rent offered by any cultivating tenant in a public auction held by the owner or any one authorised by him in respect of an agricultural holding must ordinarily be presumed to be fair, reasonable and proper until the contrary is proved by either party. Any order passed by the Tahsildar or the Revenue Divisional Officer without keeping in view the statutory presumption under section 6 (3) of the Act resulting in injustice, must be quashed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Whether or not the statutory presumption has been kept in view by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer in determining the fair rent, is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Tribunals are bound to consider the entire material, oral and documentary, adduced by the parties and arrive at a just and proper decision on the disputes raised before them. 6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I shall examine the impugned order of the Revenue Divisional Officer fixing the fair rent at 44 bags per year. The Tribunals should have started with the assumption that the offer of 110 bags of paddy made by the cultivating tenant at the public auction was the fair and proper rent for the lands in question and seen whether the cultivating tenant has established that 33 bags of paddy as pleaded by him was the fair rent. The conduct of the cultivating tenant in the instant case also is a material fact to be taken into consideration in arriving at a proper and just conclusion relating to the fair rent. The conduct of the cultivating tenant in the instant case also is a material fact to be taken into consideration in arriving at a proper and just conclusion relating to the fair rent. He is no other than the neighbouring land-owner of the temple land and he was not even a tenant of the temple for the prior years. He was not under any obligation to offer 110 bags of paddy per annum at the public auction. By offering 110 bags, he has deprived R.W. 1 who gave his offer at 105 bags of getting the benefits of the lease and also the temple which would have got the benefit of 105 bags. The aforesaid facts clearly establish that no pressure, undue influence or coercision has been exercised either by the temple authorities or any one on behalf of the temple over the cultivating tenant P.W.1 who gave his offer of 110 bags in public auction. That apart, the tenant who was put in possession of the land on 15th August, 1966, must have transplanted only subsequent to that date. The rent for which he has given the bid is undoubtedly for the entire year covering both the crops. He did not even wait till he harvested the first crop nor raised the second crop. He rushed to the Tahsildar to file the application on 14th December, 1966. The authorities should have certainly taken into consideration the aforesaid factors in determining the fair rent in the present case. 7. I am unable to agree with the plea of Sri Raghavarao, that the presumption under section 6(3) of the Act must be held to have been taken to into consideration when the evidence on record has been considered by the Tribunal. On a careful perusal of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, I am satisfied that it is liable to be quashed as the statutory presumption under section 6(3) of the Act has not been taken as the basis. Nor can it be said that the presumption under section 6(3) of the Act has been rebutted in the present case. 8. That apart, the Revenue Divisional Officer failed to take into consideration the documentary evidence Exhibit R-2 on which reliance has been placed by the Tahsildar. The rent fixed for the land in question in the year 1915 was Rs. 500 when the net price of the paddy was Rs. 8. That apart, the Revenue Divisional Officer failed to take into consideration the documentary evidence Exhibit R-2 on which reliance has been placed by the Tahsildar. The rent fixed for the land in question in the year 1915 was Rs. 500 when the net price of the paddy was Rs. 4 per bag as per Exhibit R-2. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer in modifying the well-considered order of the Tahsildar who fixed the fair rent at 80 bags, is illegal. 9. For all these reasons, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is hereby quashed and that of the Tahsildar fixing the fair rent at 80 bags per annum is restored. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above with costs. Advocate’s fee Rs. 100. G.S.M. ----- Writ Petition allowed in part.