Dismissed

Koralla Ganga Eswarudu, v. Balabadra Vera Venkata Satyanarayana

Telangana HC6 Jan 2012CRP/5850/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition was dismissed. The Court upheld concurrent findings that the tenant committed willful default by failing to pay rent for August 2004. While the eviction order stands, the petitioner was granted until March 30, 2012, to vacate the property. The C.R.P. dismissed with no costs.

What did the court decide?

One year time granted to the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the property by 30.04.2012.

Koralla Ganga Eswarudu, Vs Balabadra Vera Venkata… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

C.R.P. No. 5850 of 2011

¶3

Oral order:

¶4

This C.R.P. is directed against the judgment dated 10.11.2011, passed by the Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act-cumPrincipal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, dismissing the appeal in R.C.A. No. 26 of 2009, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.06.2009, passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, allowing R.C.C. No. 36 of 2004, filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner from the schedule property.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the judgments under revision.

¶6

Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority having appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, concurrently found that the petitioner having received the legal notice dated 31.08.2004 under Ex. A1, though paid the entire arrears of rent amounting to Rs.6,000/-, the same did not cover the rent for the month of August, 2004, and that non-payment of rent for the said month, amounted to willful default on the part of the petitioner in paying rents to the respondent, and as such, he is liable for his eviction from the schedule property, and accordingly ordered for his eviction.

¶7

The findings arrived at by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, in the judgments under revision, as noted supra, being concurrent findings on facts, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 22 of the A.P. Building, Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, finds no reason whatsoever to interfere the same.

¶8

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶9

that the petitioner be granted at least one year’s time to vacate and handover possession of the schedule property. The learned counsel for the respondent resisted the same. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it appropriate to grant time to the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the schedule property to the respondent by 30.04.2012.

¶10

Accordingly, with the above direction to the petitioner, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.

¶11

________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶12

Dated: 06^th January, 2012 KSR

Koralla Ganga Eswarudu, v. Balabadra Vera Venkata Satyanarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koralla Ganga Eswarudu, v. Balabadra Vera Venkata Satyanarayana

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

Kanishka Bar and Restaurant, Vs M/s. Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd.

B.Narasimhulu Vs C.Prabhakar

P.D.L. Ravi Kumar Vs Vendoti Rani Joshua

Vaddi Nageswara Rao, Vs Gangula Srinivasa rao

Ramesh Kumar Pawar Vs Maturu Mahesh

A.Krishna Reddy Vs Sri v.Venkat Reddy