Dismissed

Turupati Venkata Ramana v. Sanka Padmavathi

Telangana HC12 Apr 2013CRP/1508/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenges an eviction order against a tenant. The landlord sought eviction for bona fide requirements, including the use by the landlord's son and an existing clause for vacating upon demand. The Court held that the trial courts correctly found the requirement bona fide and noted the tenant's father owns a shopping complex nearby, dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is granted two months to vacate the premises.

Turupati Venkata Ramana Vs Sanka Padmavathi — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

C.R.P. No.1508 of 2013

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner is the tenant of the 1^st respondent, in respect of non-residential premises in Tenali town of Guntur District. Stating that the premises are needed for the establishment of a shop by her son, the 2^nd respondent herein, the 1^st respondent filed RCC.No.27 of 2010 before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, for eviction of the petitioner. It is also stated that there is a clause in the rental agreement to the effect that, whenever the

¶5

1^st respondent demands, the petitioner shall vacate the premises. The 1^st respondent further pleaded that the father of the petitioner owns a shopping complex, and though the petitioner had facility elsewhere, he is not vacating the shop. The petitioner opposed the RCC, by filing counter.

¶6

The learned Rent Controller allowed the RCC, through order dated 10-02-2012, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. R.C.A.No.2 of 2012, filed by the petitioner before the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, was dismissed, through order dated 13-03-2013. Hence, this revision.

¶7

Heard Sri S. Malleshwara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶8

The Rent Controller framed only one point for its consideration, viz., whether the petition schedule property is required by the 1^st

¶9

respondent for her bona fide requirement.

¶10

The respondents herein deposed as PWs 1 and 2, and they filed Exs.P-1 to P-11. The petitioner deposed as RW-1, and one, Mr.Shaik Meera Vali, was examined as RW-2. No documentary evidence was filed by him.

¶11

The Rent Controller allowed the RCC and directed eviction. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority framed two points for its consideration, viz.,

¶12

1) Whether appellant is entitled for setting aside the order and decree of lower Court in RCC 27/2010, dt.10-02-2012; and

¶13

2) Whether the respondents were able to establish the bona fide requirement, for personal occupation?

¶14

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed.

¶15

There is no dispute that the petitioner is the tenant of the 1^st respondent. Apart from reiterating the contents of the petitioner, the 1^st respondent has placed before the Court, the rent receipts, the receipts for property tax, and certain documents pertaining to her treatment. Her case was that she has become old, and she needs the support of her son, the 2^nd respondent, who is said to have discontinued the studies and intended to establish a shop. The recorded evidence clearly discloses that the requirement pleaded by the 1^st respondent is bona fide in nature.

¶16

Notwithstanding the bona fide nature of the requirement of the owner of the property, many a time, the relative hardship,

¶17

to be faced by the tenant, in the event of eviction being ordered; becomes equally, if not more important. In case it becomes difficult to a tenant to procure other premises, on being evicted, the Court is required to take the same into account. In the instant case, it has been proved beyond any pale of doubt, that the father of the petitioner owns a shopping complex of 33 shops,

¶18

just opposite to the petition schedule premises. In addition to that, there is a clear understanding between the parties, to the effect that the petitioner shall vacate the premises, as and when demanded by the 1^st respondent.

¶19

The trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have dealt with the matter objectively, and arrived at correct conclusions. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶20

The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is granted two months time, from today, to vacate the premises.

¶21

The miscellaneous petition filed in this C.R.P., shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶24

Dt.12-04-2013

¶25

Turupati Venkata Ramana v. Sanka Padmavathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Turupati Venkata Ramana v. Sanka Padmavathi

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

Kadevi Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs Vasudeva Rao

Mandalapu Yedukondalu, Vs Yenuganti Seshagiri Rao

Mandalapu Yedukondalu, Vs Yenuganti Seshagiri Rao

Sri Anireddy Vijay Rahul Reddy Vs Ms.J.R.M.Sravanthi

Munukoti Surya Prabha Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

E.S.Venkata Ramana Vs The Joint Collector, Ananthapur