Allowed

Smt. Shanta Govind Raj v. Santosh Industries

Telangana HC7 Dec 2012CRP/1005/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a civil revision petition seeking withdrawal of court-deposited rent. Although there was a dispute regarding partial ownership shares affecting full entitlement, the respondents conceded the appellants' exclusive right to the rent quantum, leading to the disposal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and miscellaneou s petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

Smt. Shanta Govind Raj Vs Santosh Industries — Partition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.R.P.No. 1005 of 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 aggrieved by order dated 02-11-2009 passed in R.A.No.55 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (RA) confirming order dated 13-02-2008 passed in I.A.No.339 of 2007 (IA) in R.C.No.197 of 1990 on the file of Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad (RCC).

¶4

The petitioners herein are the appellants in the RA and also the petitioners in the IA and respondents in the RCC whereas the first respondent herein is also the first respondent in the RA and sole respondent in the IA and petitioner in the RCC, and the second respondent in the RA is not a party in the other proceedings. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the RA.

¶5

The appellants are said to be the owners of the petition schedule premises (premises) whereas the first respondent is said to be the tenant of that premises. The first respondent filed the RCC seeking the permission of the Court to deposit the monthly rent of the premises into the Court which was allowed following which the first respondent deposited Rs.23,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for 23 months. Consequently the appellants filed I.A.No.339 of 2007 for the withdrawal of the amount deposited by the first respondent in pursuance of the orders passed in the RCC which was dismissed by the Rent Controller observing that one T.N. Mohan Raj, alleged coowner of the premises, was also claiming ownership over the premises and the appellants had not filed any document to show that the premises fell to their share during partition or they became the absolute owners of the premises by means of any registered deed by reason of which they were not entitled to withdraw the entire amount. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed the RA adding the said T.N.

¶6

Mohan Raj as second respondent therein which was dismissed aggrieved by which the appellants filed the present civil revision petition.

¶7

Learned counsel for the respondents has represented that the respondents have reported no objection to allow the CRP conceding that the quantum of rent at Rs.1,000/- per month for the premises is exclusively payable to the appellants.

¶8

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶9

_________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶10

Date: 07-12-2012 YCR

Smt. Shanta Govind Raj v. Santosh Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanta Govind Raj v. Santosh Industries

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

P. Rama Rao Vs P. Adinarayana

Gajavalli Vidya Naga Venkata Sriramulu Vs Gajavalli Leela Venkata Kumar , Murali Kumar

P.Nagabhushanam Vs Ch.Narasimha Chari and 10 Others

M.Venkata Satyaramu, Vs Nunna Veera Venkata Narasimha Murthy

M. Satyanarayana Vs Smt. Asif Jha

Smt.Lakshmi Narsamma, W/o.late Ramulu, Aged 75 Years Vs v.Gandhi