Dismissed

RAchamalla Mohana Srinivas v. Smt. Madabattula Varalakshmi

Telangana HC24 Jan 2013CRP/5004/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. The High Court upheld the Rent Controller's dismissal of an application for rejection of an eviction plaint, holding that a dispute over title requires a full trial for evidence appreciation and does not warrant rejection under CPC Order VII Rule 11.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 5004 of 2012 dismissed. No costs.

RAchamalla Mohana Srinivas Vs Smt. Madabattula… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5004 OF 2012

¶2

Dated: 24.01.2013

¶3

Between :

¶4

1. Rachamalla Mohana Srinivas

¶5

2. Rachamalla Jagannadha Tirumala Rao

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

Smt.Madabattula Varalakshmi

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5004 OF 2012

¶11

O R D E R:

¶12

By the order under revision, I.A.No.116 of 2011 filed by the revision petitioners, who are the respondents in RCC.No.56 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam for rejection of the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. was dismissed.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

As could be seen from the material available on record, RCC No.56 of 2006 was filed by the respondent herein under Section 10 (2) (i) (iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, ‘the Act’) for eviction of the respondents therein / revision petitioners on various grounds including willful default in payment of rents and causing damage to the petition schedule premises. It appears that the trial is in progress. I.A.No.116 of 2011 for rejection of plaint came to be filed alleging that the petitioner had sold away the petition schedule property in the year 2002 to a third party and that they came to know about the said fact only on 8.3.2011. Thus, it was alleged that the eviction petition filed in the year 2006 is not maintainable and therefore the petition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.

¶15

As could be seen, the revision petitioners/tenants are in effect denying the title of the landlady and as rightly held by the Court below such a dispute can be decided only after full enquiry on appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties. Hence the Court below was justified in dismissing the application. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said order which does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law.

¶16

Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶17

G. ROHINI, J

¶18

Date: 24.01.2013 Ivd/Nvl

RAchamalla Mohana Srinivas v. Smt. Madabattula Varalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

RAchamalla Mohana Srinivas v. Smt. Madabattula Varalakshmi

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

Chatla Chandrasekhar Vs Maheswar Reddy

Gundreddy Narayanamma Vs E.Malleswari

The Cloth Merchants Association, Vs Mohammed Abdul Azeem

Boyina Satyanarayana, Vs Smt. Sailaja Iyyer

K.J. Chandra Sekhar Vs Sri a. Prasad

K. Bhaskar Vs Sri a. Prasad