Dismissed

Gulabchand Pukhraj Money Lenders v. R.B.Jinender Raj

Telangana HC5 Aug 2011CRP/2175/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition against an order of eviction. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a commercial premises in Secunderabad to carry on a jewellery business, citing no other non-residential premises available in the twin cities.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; six months time granted to the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession.

Gulabchand Pukhraj Money Lenders Vs R.B.Jinender Raj — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2175 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the Order dated 28.04.2011 passed in R.A.No. 220 of 2010 by the Appellate Authority confirming the order dated 31.5.2010 passed in R.C.No. 231 of 1994 on the file of Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad.

¶4

Petitioner herein is respondent in R.C.No. 231 of 1994. R.C was filed by the respondents herein under Section 10(3)(iii)(a) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule mulgi bearing No. 7-2-764, situated at Pot Market, Secunderabad for personal requirement of carrying on his jewellery business. That R.C was allowed directing the petitioner herein to vacate and handover

¶5

the physical peaceful possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondents within two months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed an appeal viz., R.A.No.220 of 2010 and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed in R.C.No. 231 of 1994. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶6

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority ought to have considered the relative and comparative hardship that would be caused to the appellant while considering the application of the respondents in respect of non residential premises, being in occupation of another nonresidential premises.

¶7

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record.

¶8

As there is no other commercial mulgi either

¶9

occupation of the respondents herein or in twin cities, except schedule mulgi, the primary authority and the appellate authority have rightly directed the petitioner herein to vacate and hand over physical peaceful possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondents. The right of landlord to have sufficient accommodation is a matter of fundamental right and the legislature would not impose restrictions on anybody in securing sufficient accommodation either for residential or commercial purpose more so to the landlord. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, six months time is granted to the petitioner herein to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondents-landlords. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

¶12

DATE: 05.08.2011 KA

Gulabchand Pukhraj Money Lenders v. R.B.Jinender Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulabchand Pukhraj Money Lenders v. R.B.Jinender Raj

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

Smt. Shakuntala Aroa Vs Sunil Sachdev

K. Sajjan Raj, Vs Gopisetty Chandra Mouli

A.Manik Rao Vs Mrs. K.Suneetha Wesley

Bandari Mallappa alias Mahender Vs Tarachand Devda

Mr. Ubedullah Shareef, Vs Mrs. Ameena Begum (S. Madhavi Latha)

Ramesh Singh Vs Gopal Oj