Dismissed

T.Venkata Krishnaveni , T.v.Krishna Veni, v. Chilakala Paramesh

Telangana HC20 Feb 2013CRP/3286/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by a landlady against orders confirming a permanent injunction in her favor regarding her tenant's possession. The court held that since the respondent was regularly depositing rent, no illegality existed in the lower courts' restraining the petitioner from eviction without due process.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; C.R.P.M.P. disposed as infructuous.

T.Venkata Krishnaveni , T.v.Krishna Veni, Vs Chilakala… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3286 of 2012

¶2

Dated 2 0 th February, 2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

T.Venkata Krishnaveni

¶5

…Petitioner and

¶6

Chilakala Paramesh

¶7

…Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ganduri Nageswara Rao

¶9

Counsel for the respondent: Sri N.Aswartha Narayana

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This civil revision petition is filed against order, dated 25.02.2012, in C.M.A.No.13 of 2011, on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, whereby he has confirmed order, dated 30.06.2011, in I.A.No.30 of 2011 in O.S.No.7 of 2011, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur.

¶13

The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing D.No.15/204A of Anantapur Municipal Corporation, Anantapur Town. The respondent is the tenant in respect of the said property. He has filed O.S.No.7 of 2011 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession and evicting him without following due process of law. In the suit, he has filed I.A.No.30 of 2011 for temporary injunction. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit in the said IA, wherein she has taken the plea that the respondent has not paid the rents from 27.04.2007. The trial Court by order, dated 30.06.2011, allowed the IA and granted injunction in favour of the

¶14

respondent restraining the petitioner from evicting the respondent till disposal of the suit. This order was confirmed in appeal in C.M.A.No.13 of 0211. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the present civil revision petition is filed.

¶15

The petitioner has not denied the relationship of landlady and tenant between her and the respondent. As held by the Courts below, so far no quit notice was issued by the petitioner and no proceedings for eviction of the respondent have been initiated by her. The law is well settled that even if the owner of the property requires its possession, he has to follow due process of law and he cannot highhandedly evict the person in possession, more so when the occupant is tenant in respect of the property.

¶16

When the revision petition came up on 06.02.2013, this Court wanted to know whether the respondent has been depositing the rents regularly. The respondent has filed an affidavit sworn on 19.02.2013, wherein he has stated that he has been depositing the rents to the credit of the trial Court and so far he has deposited a sum of Rs.21,500/- at Rs.850/- per month. The petitioner has given the details of the challans under which payments have been made. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed this position. Inasmuch as the respondent has been depositing the rents regularly, till the petitioner secures his eviction by following due process of law, the respondent is entitled to protect his possession. Viewed from this angle, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders of the Courts below.

¶17

The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4346 of 2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶20

20^th February, 2013 VGB

T.Venkata Krishnaveni , T.v.Krishna Veni, v. Chilakala Paramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Venkata Krishnaveni , T.v.Krishna Veni, v. Chilakala Paramesh

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

Smt. Balija Earamma, W/o.Gokarappa, Vs The Govt. of Ap., Rep. by its Secretary

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Sri Sai Baba Ashirwad Sadan Flat Owners Association, Vs The Union of India

Pyari Begum Vs Sri Anantharamam M.D.

Sk. Ibrahim Vs The State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Muhammad Iqbal Ali, Vs Shri R.P. Thakur, IPS