Dismissed

M.A. Rahman and Sons, v. Kushal Chand Sanghvi

Telangana HC27 Oct 2014CRP/1553/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed by a tenant challenging the dismissal of his application to deposit rents. The court found the delay for condonation of limitation inexcusable and noted the petitioner had no bona fides due to pending eviction suits.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; miscellaneous petitions stood disposed of with no order as to costs.

M.A. Rahman and Sons, Vs Kushal Chand Sanghvi — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1553 OF 2011

¶2

Dated:27-10-2014

¶3

Between M.A. Rahman & Sons, rep., by its Proprietor Mohd. Abdul Gafoor, S/o Late M.A. Rahman, Aged 61 years, Occ: Business, C/o. Mulgi No.4-1-945, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad

¶4

... PETITIONER

¶5

AND

¶6

Kushal Chand Sanghvi and three others

¶7

.. RESPONDENTS

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1553 OF 2011

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The petitioner is the tenant of the respondents in respect of premises bearing No.4-1-945, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. He filed R.C No. 106 of 2005 against the respondents before the II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 8(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent

¶11

and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 seeking permission to deposit the rents. The R.C was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 09-11-2009, taking into account, the fact that the respondents have already filed O.S No. 2148 of 2002 in the Court of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for eviction of the petitioner.

¶12

The petitioner filed RA (SR) No.7762 of 2010 before the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. Since there was a delay of 249 days in presenting the appeal, he filed I.A No.682 of 2010 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondents opposed the same by filing a counter. The lower appellate Court dismissed the I.A through order dated 29-03-2011. Hence, this revision.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶14

The delay involved is 294 days. Though the petitioner pleaded the grounds of ill-health and filed certain documents, the lower appellate Court was not satisfied about the genuinity of the plea.

¶15

Even otherwise, there were no bona fides on the part of the petitioner in filing the R.C itself. O.S No. 2148 of 2002 was pending since 2002. The suit was decreed and he filed A.S No. 188 of 2009 before the Court of XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In case, the respondents are refusing to receive the rents, he can file an appropriate application in A.S No.188 of 2009.

¶16

The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶19

27-10-2014 ks

M.A. Rahman and Sons, v. Kushal Chand Sanghvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A. Rahman and Sons, v. Kushal Chand Sanghvi

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. Lalitha Vs M/s. Margdarsi Chit Fund Ltd.

V.Sreedhar Vs Smt.v.Sreedevi

Amirbhai Jamalbhai Vs a.Srivachalam

Gontela Srinivas, Vs Smt. Gorentla Anitha

M.Yousufuddin Khan Vs Mrs. Naseem Begum

Mohd. Mohammed Ur.Rahman , Mahmood Ur Rahman Vs M/s. Maheshwari Mega Ventures Ltd.