Partly allowed

Kovelakaru Madhusudhana Rao v. The Gudiwada Municipal Council

Telangana HC18 Mar 2011CRP/1160/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned delay and allowed a civil revision petition. A conditional order permitted the revision petitioner to file a written statement and contest a suit for eviction and rent recovery pending appeal by paying arrears and future rents.

What did the court decide?

C.R.P.M.P.No.7433 of 2009 allowed; civil revision disposed with directions to pay arrears by 31st March 2011 and future rents to contest suit, failing which revision dismissed.

Kovelakaru Madhusudhana Rao Vs The Gudiwada Municipal… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

¶2

C.R.P.M.P.No.7433 of 2009

¶3

AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1160 OF 2011

¶4

DATE:18-03-2011

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

K.Madhusudhana Rao

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

The Municipal Council, Rep. by its Commissioner, Gudivada Municipality

¶10

…Respondent

¶11

THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY

¶13

C.R.P.M.P.No.7433 of 2009 AND

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1160 OF 2011

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

In spite of service of notice, the respondent-Municipality has not chosen to put up appearance opposing C.R.P.M.P.No.7433 of 2009 filed to condone the delay in filing the revision.

¶17

For the reasons explained in the accompanying affidavit, the

¶18

delay in filing the revision is condoned and C.R.P.M.P.No.7433 of 2009 is ordered.

¶19

This revision is directed by the defendant against the orders of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, dated 7.11.2007 in allowing I.A.No.669 of 2007 in O.S.No.109 of 2007 filed under Order XV (A) (2) C.P.C. directing the defendant-petitioner herein to deposit the monthly rents in respect of the shops in question pending the suit filed for eviction.

¶20

It is not disputed that the petitioner, upon the death of his father, came into possession of two shops belonged to the respondent-Municipality (plaintiff) on a monthly rent of Rs.3,491/for first shop and Rs.3,231/- for second shop. In respect of the second shop, which was fetching monthly rent at Rs.3,231/-, the respondent-Municipality filed a suit in O.S.No.620 of 2001 and whereas, the present suit is filed for recovery of rent for the first shop. Pending the suit, the Municipality filed the impugned I.A. for deposit of the rents, which was allowed by the lower Court directing the petitioner to pay the monthly rent for both the shops from the month of May, 2004 onwards in three monthly equal instalments, failing which, his defence will be struck off. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner carried the matter in appeal in C.M.A.No.39 of 2007 before VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam. On returning the appeal by the said Court holding that no appeal les against the orders passed under Order 15-A C.P.C., the present revision is filed.

¶21

The present suit is filed by the respondent-Municipality seeking eviction of petitioner and for recovery of amount of Rs.3,53,916/-. Now, it is stated that the said arrears of rent has already been deposited by the petitioner as per the condition

¶22

imposed while granting stay by the appellate Court. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to set aside the conditional order of lower Court in so far as it striking off the defence and permit the petitioner to contest the suit by filing written statement.

¶23

Having regard to the fact that pending the appeal, entire arrears of rent said to have been deposited, it is directed that on condition of petitioner paying the entire arrears of rent till the end of February, 2011 by 31^st March, if not already deposited and continuing to pay the future rents from the month of March onwards directly to the respondent-Municipality, petitioner is permitted to file his written statement and contest the suit. In default on payment of rents, the revision stands dismissed.

¶24

With the above directions, the revision is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

_______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

¶26

MARCH 18, 2011 Tsr.

Kovelakaru Madhusudhana Rao v. The Gudiwada Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kovelakaru Madhusudhana Rao v. The Gudiwada Municipal Council

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

Sardar Trilok Singh Pishoriya Vs Dist.Collector Rr Dist. and 4 Ors.

Gajula Venkata Satya Narayana and Anr. Vs Dist Collector Wg Dist and 2 Ors.

R.S. Singh and 167 Ors. Vs M.R.O. Medak Dist. and 4 Ors.

Kolapalli Udayabhaskara Rao Vs Chinnam Gopala Prasad

Smt. Mekala Rukminamma, Vs Konijan Lakshmaiah (Died)

Addanki Venkata Subbaiah Vs Parvataneni Krishna Prasad