Disposed

Nandigam Koteswara Rao, Guntur Dist v. Llapavuluri Adiseshaiah, Guntur Dist

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jan 2024CRP/6512/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of upon joint compromise. Terms include tenant vacating premises by September 30, 2024, and waiving rent from April to September 2024.

What did the court decide?

Tenant to vacate premises by 30.09.2024; waive rent from 01.04.2024 to 30.09.2024; Landlord entitled to withdraw deposited rent; accompanying CRP 1/2017 declared infructuous.

Nandigam Koteswara Rao, Guntur Dist Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B SYAMSUNDER

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6512 OF 2016

¶6

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 29.11^016 passed in R.C.A.No. 24 of 2015 the Rent Control Appellate Authoritycum-Principal Senior Civil Judge: Guntur in R.C.C. 13/2013 dated 12.10 2015 in the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge^Guntur.

¶7

Between :

¶8

Hindu, Business, Aged about 59 years Goutham Medical Agencies, R/o. D.No. 9-1-6/7, Station Road, Railpet, Guntur. ...Appellant AND l?NO^^q^Q in' Rao. Hindu, Aged about 63 years, R/o. D.NO. 9-9-40, Prathapagiri Vaari Street, Railpet, Guntur. ...Respondent

¶9

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶10

stated ’In'teT ® 'P® circumstances D elstd to Court may be m:™ an’n'e’x?d to

¶11

Counsel tor the Petitioner : Sri Grandhi Gopaia Krishna Murthy

¶12

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Vivekananda representing Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda The Court made the following:

¶13

B5S,J C.R.P.No.6512 of 2016

¶14

¶15

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶16

C.R.P.No.6512 of 201fi

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant Mr.Grandhi Gopala Krishna Murthy, represented the case. The learned Counsel Mr.Vivekananda, represented on behalf of Mr.Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned Counsel for the respondent/landlord. The revision petitioner/tenant and the respondent/landlord are also present.

¶19

A joint memo is filed by the revision petitioner/tenant and the respondent/landlord, with terms of compromise. The terms of compromise entered between both parties explained to them in Telugu, which they admitted to be true and correct. The terms of compromise entered between the parties are as follows:-

¶20

The petitioner-tenant shall vacate the premises described in the petition schedule in RCC No. 13 of 2013 on or before 30.09.2024 by delivering open, peaceful and vacate possession of the premises to the respondent-landlord or^his nominee/representatives, failing which the respondentlandlord shall be entitled to get possession of the schedule premises through the process of the Court by executing the

¶21

BSS,J C.R.P.No.6512 Of 2016

¶22

¶23

decree passed in these proceedings and any other appropriate proceedings available to the respondent-landlord. 2) The petitioner-tenant has filed challans showing payment of rent till 31.03.2024.

¶24

Since there is a dispute regarding the payment of rent from February, 2011 to November, 2012 and since the landlord has received some amount towards advance, both parties are withdrawing their respective contentions and in view of the same, it is agreed by both parties that the tenant need not pay rent from 01.04.2024 to 30.09.2024.

¶25

The respondent-landlord shall be entitled to withdraw the rents deposited by the Revision Petitioner-tenant from the Court of Rent Controller/Appellate Authority as the case may be.

¶26

In view of the compromise between the parties, no adjudication is required in CRP No.l of 2017 and the same will be withdrawn as infructuous. 6) In view of the above terms, both parties pray to pass orders according to the above terms in CRP No. 6512 of 2016. 7) Both parties do bear their own costs of the proceedings.

¶27

As the petitioner/tenant has agreed that plaint schedule premises is required for the respondent/landlord for his personal occupation which held by the Rent Controller, and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, this Court confirmed the same in the Revision.

¶28

BSS,J C.R.P.No.6512 of 2016

¶29

¶30

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in terms of compromise entered between the parties. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim Stay if any, granted shall stand vacated.

¶31

SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

GunturOmtuTistric?"^'® Principal Senior Civil Judge:

¶36

DiSrte!"’ Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, Guntur

¶37

One CC to Sri. Grandhi Gopala Krishna Murthy Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda Advocate [OPUC] Amafataih" '^““ri of Andhra Pradesh at

¶38

Three CD Copies

¶39

Stu

¶40

PRK

¶41

*along with joint compromise memo filed in I.A No.l of 2024

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/01/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.6512 of 2016

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

¶48

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶49

CRP No. 6512 OF 2016

¶50

Between:

¶51

Nandiagam Koteswar Rao

¶52

...Petitioner

¶53

¶54

Ilapvuluri Adiseshaiah

¶55

...Respondent

¶56

JOINT MEMO FILED BY BOTH PARTIES

¶57

It is submitted that the Respondent-Landlord has^{filedRCC13of2013} for eviction of petitioner-tenant on the grounds of^{willfuldefaultinthe} payment of rent and also on the ground of bona fide^{requirementfor} personal occupation. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller vide judgement dated 12-10-2015 and an appeal^filedbythe Revision petitioner-tenant in RCA 24 of 2015 before^{thePrincipalSenior} Civil Judge, Guntur was dismissed vide orders dated 29-11-2016 affirming the judgement of the Rent Controller.

¶58

Aggrieved by the orders of Rent Controller and the^{AppellateAuthority,} the Petitioner-tenant has filed the above Civil Revision^Petition.

¶59

While so, the Revision petitioner-tenant while not admitting the allegation of willful default in the payment of rents,^{doherebyadmit} and agree that the premises is required for personal^{occupationofthe} respondent-landlord and Petitioner-tenant has offered to vacate the premises if time of one year is granted. The respondent-landlord^while

¶60

¶61

¶62

claiming that there is willful default in the payment of rent and also that he is in bonafide requirement of the premises for his personal occupation, agrees to accept the offer of the Revision Petitioner/tenant. However, the Landlord proposed that the time for vacating^the premises may be fixed as 6 months only. On further negotiations between the parties, it is agreed that the Revision Petitioner-tenant may be granted time of 9 months i.e., time till 30-09-2024 for vacating the premises.

¶63

Accordingly the following terms of compromise are agreed upon by both parties;-

¶64

The petitioners-tenants shall vacate the premises described in the petition schedule in RCC 13 of 2013 on or before 30-09-2024 by delivering open, peaceful and vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-landlord or his nominee/representative, failing which the respondent-landlord shall be entitled to get possession of the schedule premises through the process of the court by executing the decree passed in these proceedings and any other appropriate proceedings available to the respondent-landlord.

¶65

The petitioners-tenants have filed challans showing payment of rent till 31-03-2024.

¶66

Since there is a dispute regarding the payment of rent from Februaiy 2011 to November 2012 and since the landlord has received some amount towards advance, both parties are withdrawing their respective contentions and in view of the same, it is agreed by both parties that the tenant need not pay rent from 01-04-2024 to 30-09-2024.

¶67

¶68

¶69

The Respondent-landlord shall be entitled to withdraw the rents deposited by the Revision Petitioner-tenant from the court of Rent Controller/ Appellate Authority as the case may be.

¶70

In view of the compromise between the parties, no adjudication is required in CRP 1 of 2017 and the same will be withdrawn as infructuous.

¶71

In view of the above terms both parties pray to pass orders according to the above terms in CRP 6512/2016.

¶72

Both parties do bear their own costs of the proceedings.

¶73

PETITIONER-TENANT

¶74

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER-TENANT

¶75

RESPONENT-LANDLORD

¶76

COUNSELFOR RESPON LANDLORD

¶77

AMARAVATI DATED-09-01-2024.

Nandigam Koteswara Rao, Guntur Dist v. Llapavuluri Adiseshaiah, Guntur Dist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandigam Koteswara Rao, Guntur Dist v. Llapavuluri Adiseshaiah, Guntur Dist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asapu Vinodh, Vs Asapu Anusha

Chilaka Koteswaramma Vs Chilaka Vara Prasada Rao

Smt Surisettimanika Vs Dr Surisetti Vidya Sagar

Palaparthi Bhargaviat Lakshmi Bhargavi Vs Mr.Simhadri Gopal Reddy

Nandigama Radha Krishna Murthy, Guntur Dist and Anr. Vs Ilapavuluri Adiseshaiah, Guntur

Nandigam Koteswara Rao, Guntur Vs Ilapavuluri Adiseshaiah, Guntur