Dismissed

Sri Ramaiah v. D.Mahesh Chandra

Telangana HC1 Feb 2013SA/84/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court dismissed the second appeal by tenant against eviction decree. Court granted appellant five months to vacate contingent on filing undertaking to deposit arrears and hand over possession, failing which decree execution would be allowed.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted five months to vacate and hand over possession, subject to filing undertaking to deposit arrears within four weeks.

Sri Ramaiah Vs D.Mahesh Chandra — Partition | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶2

S.A.No.84 of 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Second Appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.3 of 2010 dated 11.10.2012 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court) , City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶5

The appellant is the tenant and the respondents are landlords, who filed suit O.S.No.1023 of 2007 for eviction of appellant-tenant from the suit schedule property and also for recovery of arrears of rent and for damages. On considering the matter, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs by judgment and decree dated 26.11.2009 ordering eviction of the appellant and directed the appellant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the respondents-landlords while granting Rs.5,600/- towards arrears of rent and Rs.1400/- per month towards damages from the date of suit till the date of vacating the premises along with future interest at 6% per annum on Rs.5,600/-. Challenging the said order, appellant preferred appeal in A.S.No.3 of 2010 before the IX Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence this revision.

¶6

Perused the judgment and decrees passed by both the Courts below and I do not see any substantial grounds to interfere with the same. In view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, it cannot be said that the eviction order passed by the trial Court is illegal and unsustainable. The appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶7

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is granted five (5) months time i.e. upto 30.6.2013 to vacant and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondents-landlords, subject to filing of an undertaking before the

¶8

trial Court by 15.2.2013 that he will deposit the entire arrears of rents within a period of four weeks from today and that he will handover vacant possession of the premises on or before 30.6.2013. Failure to give such an undertaking, the respondents-landlords are at liberty to execute the decree. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶9

______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J

¶10

Date: 1.2.2013 DA

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶12

S.A.No.84 of 2013

¶13

1.2.2013

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶15

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH

¶16

S.A.No.84 of 2013

¶17

Date: 1.2.2013 Between: Ramaiah Appellant And D.Mahesh Chandra and others.

¶18

Respondents

Sri Ramaiah v. D.Mahesh Chandra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramaiah v. D.Mahesh Chandra

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

Boyina Satyanarayana, Vs Smt. Sailaja Iyyer

K.J. Chandra Sekhar Vs Sri a. Prasad

K. Bhaskar Vs Sri a. Prasad

Sri Landa Pydithalli, Vs Sri Land Seethamnaidu

Pidugu Kondala Rayudu Vs Sri Gopi Nath

Sri Kadupukotla Devudu Vs Smt. Chandaka Jhansi Kumari