Dismissed

Peerubandi Prahlad Kumar v. S.E. Prasada Rao

Telangana HC30 Apr 2013SA/467/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding eviction of a tenant who failed to vacate premises after notice, the appellant's defence was struck off. The court held no substantial question of law arose, dismissed the appeal as untenable, but directed the tenant to pay arrears and vacate within four weeks to retain possession. Disposition: dismissed appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. Applicant directed to deposit arrears and vacate within four weeks to retain possession; otherwise liable to immediate eviction.

Peerubandi Prahlad Kumar Vs S.E. Prasada Rao — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Second Appeal No.467 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The respondent is the owner of a Flat, bearing No.205, ESSAR Enclave, Sivajipalem, Visakhapatnam. The appellant took the same on lease, in the year 2001. The respondent issued a notice, dated 12.11.2008, requiring the appellant to vacate the premises. Since the appellant did not vacate, the respondent filed O.S.No.443 of 2009 in the Court of V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam. The appellant contested the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit on 19.07.2011. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S.No.141 of 2011 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The appeal was dismissed on 11.03.2013. Hence, this Second Appeal.

¶5

Heard Sri K.Bheema Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The appellant was the tenant of the premises since the year 2001. The respondent issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and sought eviction. When the request was not acceded to, he filed the suit. The trial Court framed the following issue for its consideration:

¶7

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relied as prayed for?

¶8

On behalf of the respondent, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were filed. No evidence was adduced by the appellant. In A.S.No.141 of 2011, the lower Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration and dismissed the appeal:

¶9

i) “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of the defendant from the suit schedule property?

¶10

ii) Whether the impugned Decree and Judgment dated 19.07.2011 in O.S.No.443 of 2009 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam is sustainable or not?”

¶11

Since there was no dispute as to the appellant being lessee and the respondent being lessor, the latter filed I.A.No.723 of 2010 under Order XV-A C.P.C., with a request to direct the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent, which according to him, aggregate to Rs.29,500/-. That application was allowed on 11.02.2011. The appellant did not comply with the same. Therefore, the respondent filed I.A.No.63 of 2011 for striking off the defence of the appellant and even that was allowed on 21.06.2011. Therefore, the appellant was precluded from leading any evidence. He did not point out any serious defect in the claim of the respondent. The trial Court was left with no alternative, except to decree the suit. In the appeal also, the appellant herein was not able to point out any factual or legal defect in the decree suffered by him. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. Once the defence of the appellant was struck off and he did not deny the fact that a notice was issued to him requiring him to vacate the premises, there is no way he can continue in the premises.

¶12

The second appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant made a request for grant of reasonable time for his client to vacate the premises. Though the conduct of the appellant does not warrant any indulgence, it is directed that in case the appellant deposits the arrears of rents, within four weeks from today, and files an undertaking within that period before the trial Court, stating that he would vacate the premises on or before

¶14

30.08.2013,

¶15

he shall be entitled to remain in possession till that period. In default, he shall be liable to be evicted forthwith.

¶16

The miscellaneous petition filed in this second appeal shall stand disposed of.

¶17

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶18

Dated:30.04.2013 GJ

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶20

Second Appeal No.467 of 2013

¶21

Date:30.04.2013

¶22

Peerubandi Prahlad Kumar v. S.E. Prasada Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peerubandi Prahlad Kumar v. S.E. Prasada Rao

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

M/s.Ind Bank Housing Ltd. Vs Mr.Chileveru Achi Reddy

Viskhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Vs M/s. Fusion foods

M. Bala Subrahmanyam, Vs M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, a Company Incorporated

Sri Singi Reddy Bal Reddy S/o Late Narsa Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Wahed All Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Chitrapu Abhijith Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University