P. Satyanarayana Raju, J.
1. These two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution raise an identical question for determination and may be disposed to together.
2. The question for determination is whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 2(m) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, which reads :
'Provided that the proceeds of the sale by a person of agricultural or horticultural produce grown by himself or grown on any land in which he has interest whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise shall be excluded from his turnover.'
3. The assessees entered into written contracts with the owners of tobacco growing lands in the District of Warangal. The material terms of the agreement are :
'1. At the time of seedling, and at the time of plucking the leaves, and later, I shall follow your instructions. I will use only those seeds given by you at your responsibility.
2. After plucking the leaves, I shall bundle them in threads, and I shall be careful to see that it will not get wet and damaged.
3. After the leaves are brought to the rooms (mande pakam) I should dry them and after they are dried I must bale them, and deliver the same at your company's godown at Warangal at your expenses. The bundling charges, the expenditure on rope and thread etc. should be borne by you only.
4. Though both of us have the same right on the crop I should receive a consideration for the services rendered by us to the extent of Rs. 270 per candy of 500 lbs. subject to the tobacco being dry and of good colour. If the tobacco is damaged being wet, we agree to abide by the rate fixed by you.
5. As the price paid by you is the consideration for services rendered by us, whatever be the market conditions whether the rates go up or come down, I shall abide by the conditions of this agreement. If I do not do so, I will bear losses attendant thereto.'
4. One of the important conditions for the application of the proviso is that the agricultural produce must be grown by the dealer himself or must be grown on land in which he has an interest, whether as owner, usufructuary mortgagee, tenant or otherwise.
5. On a consideration of the terms of the contract it is clear that all that the assessee is entitled to is only the exclusive right to the usufruct and that by no stretch of language can be held to be 'an interest in the land' so as to entitle him to the benefit of the proviso.
6. Relying on the definition of 'tenant' contained in the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Mr. Venkateswarlu has contended that the petitioners have an interest in the land which would enable them to seek the benefits of the proviso. The definition of 'tenant' given in the said Act cannot be imported into the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted.
7. for the petitioners then relied on the expression 'otherwise' contained in the proviso and contended that the petitioners would come within the meaning of that expression.
8. The expression 'otherwise' in the proviso should be construed on the application of the principle of ejusdem generis. The one feature that runs through the three classes of interest specified in the clause, viz., ownership, usufructuary mortgage or tenancy, is the right to the exclusive possession of the land and any interest to be brought within the scope of the term 'otherwise' in section 2(m) must satisfy that generic requirement, the right to exclusive possession of the land itself. This was the view taken by Satyanarayana Rao and Rajagopalan, JJ., in Sultan Ahmed Rowther v. State of Madras (1954 5 S.T.C. 166) in construing the provisions of section 2(i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act which are in pari materia with the provisions of section 2(m) of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Act, and I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by them. The view taken by the Sales Tax Act Appellate Tribunal is correct and there are no valid grounds justifying the interference of this Court under Article 226. These writ petitions must therefore fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee in each petition Rs. 50.