The court dismissed a civil revision petition against an appellate order upholding tenant eviction for willful non-payment of rent. The petitioner was granted eight months to vacate the premises.
Time granted to petitioner for eight months to vacate the premises and handover to respondent-landlord, subject to payment of agreed rents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
CRP No.4900 OF 2011
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 27-092011 passed in RA No.174 of 2011 by the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 13-62007 passed in RC No.108 of 2009 by the XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order passed by the Courts below.
3. The petitioner herein is the respondent in RC No.108 of 2009 filed by the respondent herein who is the landlord of the premises in question. The respondent herein filed the RC against the petitioner herein on five grounds namely; willful default, subletting, acts of waste, personal occupation and securing alternative accommodation by the petitioner herein. The trial Court after recording the evidence found that the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rents, secured alternative accommodation and that the respondent herein requires the premises in question for establishing advocate’s office for his wife. The said finding of the trial Court was called in question by the petitioner herein in RA No.174 of 2011 before the lower appellate Court. By the impugned order, the lower appellate Court also while setting aside the finding of the trial Court on the point of petitioner securing alternative accommodation, but confirmed the findings on the points of bonafide requirement of the premises in question by the respondent-landlord and willful default in payment of rents by the petitioner herein.
4. Both the Courts below on considering the oral and documentary evidence, on the grounds of bonafide requirement of the premises in question by the respondent and also willful default in payment of rents by the petitioner herein, recorded concurrent findings. On facts nothing is pointed out to take a different view than the view taken by the Courts below. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner are in fact considered by the Courts below and held against him.
5. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court below partly confirming the order of the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. However, in view of the difficulty pleaded by the counsel in vacating the premises in question by the petitioner, eight months time is granted from today to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question and handover the same to the respondent-landlord, subject to payment of agreed rents.
6. In the result, the civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage itself.
__________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J
Dated: 23-11-2011 Note: cc by tomorrow. (b/o) Nrg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition warrants interference given the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding willful default in rent payment.
Petitioner
Respondent
Ghulam Mohammed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
