Partly allowed

Syed Akber Alam v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal

Telangana HC14 Jun 2013CCCA/33/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns an eviction appeal where the parties reached a compromise in the trial court. While impeaching the full recognition of the lower court decree, the appellate court allows the appeal partially based on the settlement terms requiring specific eviction timelines, rent payment, and withdrawal of mesne profits application.

What did the court decide?

Appellant to vacate premises on 01.04.2015 and pay rent at Rs.1,00,000/month; not entitled to refund of deposited amount; respondents to withdraw mesne profits application.

Syed Akber Alam Vs Pradeep Kumar Agarwal — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶2

C.C.C.A.No.33 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)

¶4

The appellant is the sole defendant in O.S.No.329 of 2008 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents filed the suit for eviction of the appellant from the suit schedule premises.

¶5

The respondents have leased the premises comprising of cellar, ground floor and four upper floors situated at Nampally, Hyderabad to the appellant for running a lodge in the year 2006. The respondents filed the suit for eviction alleging that the appellant committed default in payment of rents and despite the termination of lease, he did not vacate the premises. The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 06.02.2013. Hence, this appeal.

¶6

Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents have advanced extensive arguments on merits. At that stage, the parties have come forward with a compromise. A memorandum incorporating the terms of compromise has been filed into the Court. We verified from the parties, who were present in the Court, as to whether they have understood the purport thereof and whether they abide by it. All of them stated that

¶7

they have signed the memorandum of compromise after understanding the scope of conditions and that they also abide by it.

¶8

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed directing that –

¶9

(a) the appellant shall vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondents on or before 01.04.2015 and till that date, he shall pay the rent at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) per month on or before 10^th of every month from July 2013 till March 2015;

¶10

(b) he shall not be entitled to claim any refund of the amount said to have been deposited by him;

¶11

(c) the respondents shall withdraw the application filed by them before the trial Court for ascertainment of mesne profits; and

¶12

(d) The memorandum of compromise shall form part of record of this appeal.

¶13

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶15

S.V.BHATT,

¶16

¶17

Date: 14.06.2013 JSU

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶19

C.C.C.A.No.33 of 2013

¶20

Date: 14.06.2013

¶21

JSU

¶22

(e)

Syed Akber Alam v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Akber Alam v. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal

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

G.V. Deena Dayal Vs a. Bhagirathi

Oreintal Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Sri Mahalakshmi Cotton and General Trading Company

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, Rev.Dept Vs Mohd. Muntazuddin Khan (died) per Lr RR-2 to 8

Sri L.Gangadhara Pratap Vs Ms. L.Neelima

The Commissioner and Spl. Officer Vs C. Sreeramulu(died) per Lr Rr 2 to 4

Juthiga Srinivas Vs Tatavarthi Srinivas