Dismissed

Peddi Sivaiah, Guntur v. Ilapavuluri Adiseshaiah, Guntur

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Jan 2024CRP/6513/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition filed under the Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 regarding eviction, based on a compromise agreement between the tenant-petitioners and the landlord-respondent. Compromise terms included vacating conditions and an agreed non-adjudication of another related petition.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of in terms of compromise including vacancy by 30.09.2024; related Petition 1 of 2017 withdrawn as infructuous; stay vacated.

Peddi Sivaiah, Guntur Vs Ilapavuluri Adiseshaiah… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

/ .i-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

the honourable SRI JUSTICE bandaru syamsunder

¶6

CIVIL revision PETITinu of201fi

¶7

Petition under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease , Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1960 is filed against the order dated 29-11-2016 passed in R.C.A.No.21 of 2015 on file of the Rent Control Authority-cum-Principal Senior Appellate Civil Judge, Guntur and also the orders of Rent ControllerNO.10 Of 2013 dateTl'To'Sir" ""

¶8

Between:

¶9

1- Peddi Sivaiah, S/o Rama Kotaiah, (Died per LRs)

¶10

Peddi Ramu. S/o.Late Peddi 39 years, R/o.D.No.5-2 Sivaiah, Hindu, Occ; Business. aged about -84, 2"'^ Line, Pandalipuram, Guntur. 3. Gudipudi Sarada, W/o.Nageswara Rao Hindu, aged about 42 Housewife, R/o.D.No.1 years, -171, Paragaticherla, Machavaram, Rompicherla Mandal, Palnadu District. (Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 have been brought on record as LRs of deceased Sole Petitioner as per Court Order dated 18.12.2023 vide I.A.No.2 of 2022 in CRP No.6513 of 2016)

¶11

-Petitioners/Appellants

¶12

AND

¶13

llapavuluri Adiseshaiah, S/o Subba Rao, Hindu, Aged About 63 Years, R/o. D.No.9-9-40. Prathapagiri Vaari Street, Railpet, Guntur

¶14

...Respondent/ Respondent

¶15

LA. NO: 1 OF 2016(CRPMP N O: 8541 OF 9nifi|

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings in RCC No. 10/2013 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-PrI Junior Civil Judge, Guntur and RCA No.21/2015 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority Guntur pending disposal of the CRP filed - J by the petitioner.

¶17

LA. NO: 1 OF 2017rCRPMP. NO: 1569 OF 9ni7|

¶18

Between:

¶19

llapavuluri Adiseshaiah, S/o Subba Rao, Hindu Aged About 63 Years, R/o. D.No.9-9-40, Prathapagiri Vaari Street, Railpet, Guntur

¶20

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶21

AND

¶22

Peddi Sivaiah, S/o Rama Kotaiah, (Died per LRs)

¶23

Peddi Ramu, S/o.Late Peddi Sivaiah, Hindu, Occ; Business, aged about 39 years, R/o.D.No.5-2-84, 2^^^ Line, Pandalipuram, Guntur.

¶24

Gudipudi Sarada, W/o.Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, Housewife, R/o.D.No.1-171, Paragaticherla Machavaram, Rompicherla

¶25

Mandal, Palnadu District.

¶26

® ^ on record as LRs of deceased 20^2 in crNo.65?3 Of 2016r''

¶27

...Respondents/ Petitioners

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i - in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the stay granted in CRPMP No.8541/2016 in CRP No.6513/2016 dated 13.12.2016 as extended on 05.01.2017.

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF

¶30

Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporf of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass a decree in terms of the compromise as incorporated in the joint memo annexed to this petition.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Grandhi Gopala Krishna Murthy

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Vivekananda, represented on behalf of Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda

¶33

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

BSS,J C.R.P.No.6513 of 2016

¶35

¶36

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶37

C.R.P.No.6513 of 2Qlfi

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants 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 learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants not pressed the petition in respect of revision petitioner No.3/tenant on the ground that revision petitioner No.2/tenant alone is in possession of petition schedule property and revision petitioner No.3/tenant is not a necessary party.The revision petitioner No.2/tenant and the respondent/landlord are also present

¶40

A joint memo is filed by the revision petitioners/tenants 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:-

¶41

BSS,J C.R.P.No.6513 of 2016

¶42

¶43

¶44

The petitioners-tenants shall vacate the premises described in the petition schedule in RCC No. 10 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 respondentlandiord shaii 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 availabie to the respondent-iandlord.

¶45

The petitioners-tenants have filed challans showing payment of rent tiil 31.03.2024.

¶46

Since there is a dispute regarding the payment of rent from February, 2011 to November, 2012 and since the iandlord 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 tenants need not pay rent from 01.04.2024 to 30.09.2024. 4) The respondent-landiord shall be entitled to withdraw the rents deposited by the Revision Petitioners-tenants from the Court of Rent Controller/Appeilate Authority as the case may be. 5) In view of the compromise between the parties, no adjudication is required in CRP No. 10 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. 6513 of 2016. 7) Both parties do bear their own costs of the proceedings.

¶47

¶48

BSS,J C.R.P.No.6513 of 2016

¶49

¶50

As the revision petitioner No.2/tenant has agreed that plaint schedule premises IS required for the respondent/landlord for his personal occupation which^heldby the Rent Controller, and confirmed by the Appellate Authority, this Court also confirmed the same in the Revision.

¶51

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in terms of compromise entered between the parties. No order as^tocosts. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand

¶52

closed. Interim Stay if any, granted shall stand vacated.

¶53

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶56

SECTION OFFICER

¶57

¶58

The Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶59

The Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur Guntur District.

¶60

One CC to Sri Grandhi Gopala Krishna Murthy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati

¶63

Three CD Copies

¶64

¶65

vna

¶66

*along with the Joint Memo in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in CRP No.6513 of 2016

HIGH COURT

DATED:12/01/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.6513 of 2016

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IN TERMS OF COMPROMISE

¶72

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:

¶73

IN THE HON’BLE AMARAVATI

¶74

CRP No. 6513 OF 2016

¶75

Between:

¶76

Peddi Sivaiah (Died) rep by L.Rs Peddi Ramu

¶77

...Petitioner

¶78

¶79

Ilapvnluri Adiseshaiah

¶80

...Respondent

¶81

■TOINT memo filed by both parti^

¶82

Landlord has filed RCC 10 of 2013

¶83

1. It is submitted that the Respondentthe grounds of willful default in the

¶84

for eviction of petitioner-tenant on of rent and also on the^{groundofbonafiderequirementfor}

¶85

payment personal occupation. The said petition was allowed by the Rent dated 12-10-2015 and an appeal filed by the

¶86

^ Controller vide judgement of 2015 before the Principal Senior

¶87

Revision petitioner-tenant in RCA 21 orders dated 29-11-2016

¶88

dismissed vide

¶89

; Civil Judge, Guntur was affirming the judgement of the Rent Controller

¶90

Controller and the Appellate Authority,

¶91

1. Aggrieved by the orders of Rent has filed the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶92

the Petitioner-tenant

¶93

while not admitting the

¶94

1. While so the Revision petitioner-tenant , do hereby admit

¶95

allegation of willful default in the payment of rents IS required for personal occupation of the

¶96

and agree that the premises has offered to vacate the

¶97

respondent-landlord and Petitioner-tenant

¶98

premises if time of one year is granted. The respondent-landlord^while claiming that there is willful default in the payment^{ofrentandalso} that he is in bonaflde 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^betweenthe 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.

¶99

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

¶100

The petitioners-tenants shall v.acate the premises described in the petition schedule in RCC 10 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 en dtled to get possession^{oftheschedule} premises through the process of the court by executing^thedecree passed in these proceedings and any other appropriate^proceedings available to the respondent-landlord.

¶101

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

¶102

Since there is a dispute regarding the payment of^{rentfromFebruary} 2011 to November 2012 and since the landlord has received some amount towards advance, both parties are withdrawing their respective

¶103

tXjL

¶104

Oi-

¶105

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.

¶106

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.

¶107

In view of the compromise between the parties, no^adjudication is required in CRP 10 of 2017 and the same will be withdrawn as infructuous.

¶108

In view of the above terms both parties pray to pass orders according to the above terms in CRP 6513/2016.

¶109

Both parties do bear their ovm costs of the proceedings.

¶110

PETITIONER-TENANT

¶111

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER-TENANT

¶112

RESPONENT-LANDLORD

¶113

COUNSEL FOR RES?ONT5eNT- LANDLORD

¶114

AMARAVATI DATED-09-01-2024.

Peddi Sivaiah, Guntur v. Ilapavuluri Adiseshaiah, Guntur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peddi Sivaiah, Guntur v. Ilapavuluri Adiseshaiah, Guntur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunkesula at Dudekula Nadia Vs Dudekula Siraj

K. Sree Sowmya Vs B.K. Sravan Karthik

Edara Krishna Rajan Vs Edara Mounika

C Srinivasa Rao, Guntur Dist Vs Ilapavuluri Lakshmi, Guntur Dist and 1 Other

C S Rao, Guntur Vs Ilapavuluri Lakshmi, Guntur Dist and 1 Other

The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Vs Y. Mariyadas and Sons, Rep. by its Partner