Disposed

Mohammad Ismail, v. Sri Dupaguntal Satyanarayana Vara Prasad

Telangana HC18 Feb 2013CRP/999/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court refused to interfere with electricity supply orders in a rent case. It directed the lower court to dispose of the main case within six months of receiving the order copy, relying on counsel that supply was restored and landlord-tenant relationship was denied.

What did the court decide?

Directed the court below to dispose of the main case within six months; CRP.M.P.Nos dismissed in consequence.

Mohammad Ismail, Vs Sri Dupaguntal Satyanarayana Vara… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2210 of 2010 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.999 of 2011

¶2

DATED: 18.02.2013

¶3

CRP No.2210 of 2010: Between: Sri Dupaguntla Satyanarayana Vara Prasad ... Petitioner And Mohammad Ismail and three others …Respondents CRP No.999 of 2011 Between: Mohammad Ismail … Petitioner And: Sri Dupaguntla Satyanarayana Vara Prasad & others … Respondents

¶4

This Court made the following:

¶5

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2210 of 2010 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.999 of 2011

¶7

COMMON ORDER:

¶8

These two civil revision petitions arise out of the orders of the learned Rent Controller cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in R.C.C.No.2 Of 2009. These orders pertained to the supply of electricity to the premises which is the subject matter of the rent control case. Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Sri D.Satyanarayana Vara Prasad, 1^st respondent in C.R.P.No.999 of 2011 and the petitioner in C.R.P.No.2210 of 2010, fairly stated that at present electricity supply to the subject premises has been restored and is continuing. He further stated that the Court below may be directed to dispose of the main case expeditiously as his client was denying the very relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties.

¶9

2. As electricity is a basic amenity, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage. However, as pointed out by Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, learned counsel, it would be appropriate in the given facts that the Court below dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than six(6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

3. The civil revision petitions are disposed of with the above direction. CRP.M.P.Nos 6778 of 2010 in CRP No.2210 of 2010 and 1422 of 2011 in CRP No.999 of 2011 shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.

¶11

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J

¶12

Date: 18.02.2013 pab/bss

Mohammad Ismail, v. Sri Dupaguntal Satyanarayana Vara Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ismail, v. Sri Dupaguntal Satyanarayana Vara Prasad

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

B.Narsa Raju, Vs Karikal Valaven, I.A.S.

P. Pochaiah, Vs Sri. A.K. Khan

M/s Kaveri Restaurant (Food and Beverages) Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Department Vs Nanjala Satyanarayana

Sapavath Venkateswarlu Vs Sri Seetharamanjaneya Finance Palocha

Toopran Srinivas Vs Sri K.Venkateswara Rao