Dismissed

Abdul Majeed v. Mohammed Abdul Aziz

Telangana HC23 Nov 2011CRP/4992/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a civil revision against affirmed eviction orders. While the impugned order finding personal requirement for the landlord was upheld, the court granted six months specially to vacate premises pending full rent payment.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; Six months time granted to petitioner to vacate premises and handover to landlord subject to payment of agreed rents.

Abdul Majeed Vs Mohammed Abdul Aziz — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶2

CRP No.4992 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 22-092011 passed in RA No.204 of 2010 by the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order dated 24-62007 passed in RC No.80 of 2004 by the IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

¶5

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order passed by the Courts below.

¶6

3. The petitioner herein is the respondent in RC No.80 of 2004 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 two grounds namely; willful default and bonafide personal requirement. The trial Court after recording the evidence found that the respondent herein failed to prove that the petitioner committed willful default in payment of rents, but held that the premises in question is required for the bonafide personal requirement of the respondent. The said finding of the trial Court was called in question by the petitioner herein in RA No.204 of 2010 before the lower appellate Court. By the impugned order, the lower appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court. 4. Both the Courts below on considering the oral and documentary evidence, on the grounds of bonafide personal requirement of the premises in question by the respondent 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.

¶7

5. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate Court below 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

¶8

by the petitioner, six 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.

¶9

__________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J

¶10

Dated: 23-11-2011 Note: cc in two days. (b/o) Nrg

Abdul Majeed v. Mohammed Abdul Aziz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Majeed v. Mohammed Abdul Aziz

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khaja Yousuf Shareef Vs Mohammed Noor Mohiuddin

P. Hari Yadav Vs Smt. P. Andalu

D. Narasingha Rao Vs D. Sathyanarayana

Mr. Eugene Yashao King, Vs Smt.K. Arundathi

Y. T.Rajasekhar Vs v.Pershad Jaiswal

1) Ch. Bhoopal Goud, Vs Kilaru Vijakumar