The court dismissed the civil revision petition as infructuous because the petitioner had undertaken to vacate the premises and eviction had already been executed through a bailiff.
Petitioner to vacate premises; possession delivered to respondent; revision dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1432 of 2014
Dated 1 4 th August, 2014
Between:
Kothapalli Issac And
…Petitioner
B.Ramesh Babu
…Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala
Counsel for the respondent: Sri Md.Kaleem Pasha
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 21.01.2014, in R.A.No.5 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the order, dated 22.12.2012, in R.C.No.5 of 2011, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
The petitioner is the tenant of the respondent. The respondent filed R.C.No.5 of 2012 for eviction of the petitioner under Section 10(2) (i) and 10(3) (a) (i) (a) of the A.P.Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. By order, dated 22.12.2012, the Rent Controller has allowed the petition filed by the respondent by upholding the plea of bona fide requirement and wilful default, and has accordingly ordered eviction. In the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order, the lower appellate Court has confirmed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner filed this civil revision petition.
At the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the EP filed before the trial Court, the petitioner has given an undertaking that he will vacate the premises by 04.08.2014. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as the petitioner failed to vacate the premises as undertaken by him, the executing Court issued warrant to the bailiff for delivering possession of the property to the respondent and that in pursuance thereof, the bailiff executed warrant today by taking possession from the petitioner and delivering the same to the respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is not aware of this fact submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent.
Inasmuch as the petitioner has given an undertaking before the Rent Controller and that he is stated to have been evicted from the premises through execution, the civil revision petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2846 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
14th August, 2014 VGB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition remains maintainable when the petitioner has undertaken to vacate the premises and the eviction has been executed.
Whether the execution warrant based on the undertaking renders the revision petition infructuous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kothapalli Issac
B.Ramesh Babu
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
