Dismissed

Smt. Shakuntala Aroa v. Sunil Sachdev

Telangana HC2 Aug 2011SA/885/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal against decrees for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Relying on concurrent findings that the tenant validly terminated tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the court held no legal question existed and dismissed the appeal. However, the appellant was granted six months to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Six months time granted from today to vacate the premises in question.

Smt. Shakuntala Aroa Vs Sunil Sachdev — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶2

SA No.885 of 2011

¶3

JUDGMENT::

¶4

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-04-2011 passed in AS No.27 of 2008 by the XX Addl. Chief Judge, Secunderabad, confirming the judgment decree dated 17-01-2007 in O.S.No.598 of 2007 passed by the XVIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶5

2. The defendant is the appellant herein. The respondent, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.598 of 2007, filed suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A5. The defendant examined as DW-1, but no documents were marked.

¶6

3. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record and having regard to the admitted fact that the respondent is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the appellant herein is the tenant of the same and the also having found that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has been properly issued and binding on the appellant decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendantappellant herein preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court too on consideration of the evidence came to the same conclusion and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.

¶7

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. The lower appellate Court as well as the trial Court on consideration of the entire evidence on record came to the factual conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent herein validly terminated the tenancy and he is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit property. In view of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law muchless substantial question of law in this Second Appeal.

¶8

5. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, appellant-defendant is granted six months time from today to

¶9

vacate the premises in question without fail.

¶10

__________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 2-8-2011 Nrg.

Smt. Shakuntala Aroa v. Sunil Sachdev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shakuntala Aroa v. Sunil Sachdev

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

K. Sajjan Raj, Vs Gopisetty Chandra Mouli

A.Manik Rao Vs Mrs. K.Suneetha Wesley

M/s. Cooling Crafts, Proprietary Concern, Vs P. Uma Shankar Rao

Bandari Mallappa alias Mahender Vs Tarachand Devda

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

Gulabchand Pukhraj Money Lenders Vs R.B.Jinender Raj