October - December 2012 - National Institute of Rural Development

Status of Tenancy in Uttar Pradesh: Some Facts from the Field 413Recent Changes in Tenancy PatternWe also tried to examine whether therehave been changes in any aspect of tenancyduring the past five years. Majority of sampletenants (62 per cent) reported that there wasno change of any form in the tenancy duringthe last five years (Table 28). Remainingtenants reported change in tenancy inrespect of choice of crop (16 per cent), termsof lease (14 per cent) and sharing in cost (8per cent).There were differences in pattern ofresponse in different districts. A relativelyhigher proportion of tenants reported nochange in tenancy system in Sultanpur, Jhansiand Hardoi districts. However, 44 per centtenants reported change in terms of lease inLakhimpur, while 48 per cent reportedchange in selection of crops in Etah district.Table 28 : Changes Reported in Tenancy During Last Five YearsChanges Lakhimpur Hardoi Sultanpur Etah Jhansi AllType of lease 19 1 4 5 8 37(44.19) (1.78) (6.67) (10.00) (16.33) (14.34)Sharing in cost 3 5 - 7 5 20(6.98) (8.93) (14.00) (10.20) (7.75)Selection of crops 4 12 - 24 - 40(9.30) (21.43) (48.00) (15.50)Others (timely payment) 2 - - - - 2(4.65) (0.78)No change 15 38 56 14 36 159(34.88) (67.86) (93.33) (28.00) (73.47) (61.63)Total 43 56 60 50 49 258(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)Source : Field Survey.Relation of Tenants with Landlords : Thestudy has also examined the nature ofrelations between tenants and landlords.Hardly 2 per cent of tenants reported thatthere was any dispute with their landlords.Decision about Cropping Pattern : About60 per cent of tenants reported that thedecision about cropping pattern was takenjointly in majority of cases (Table 29). Around28 per cent of tenants expressed the viewthat landlords took such decisions. Thisproportion was higher in Hardoi and Etahdistricts, 53.6 and 36.0 per cent, respectively.About 13 per cent of tenants took decisionthemselves about cropping pattern.Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 31, No. 4, October - December : 2012