Dismissed

M. Jagannath v. Arya Vysya Abhyudaya Sangham

Telangana HC30 Oct 2014CRP/1794/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants filed civil revisions challenging the dismissal of their affidavits regarding eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord society president who had left India. The High Court dismissed the revisions, holding tenants should not contest the competency of representatives pursuing eviction.

What did the court decide?

The civil revisions were dismissed and miscellaneous petitions disposed of.

M. Jagannath Vs Arya Vysya Abhyudaya Sangham — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1793, 1794, 1797 AND 1799 OF 2011 Dated:30-10-2014

¶2

Between:

¶3

M. Jagannath and others

¶4

... PETITIONERS

¶5

AND

¶6

Arya Vysya Abhyudaya Sangham, a society registered under the Societies Act, rep., by its President (authorized by a resolution), Sri Boorugu Suryaprakasha Rao, S/o late Sri B. Omkaram, Hindu, aged about 76 years, 1-8-144 to 1-8-152, Prenderghast Road, Secunderabad

¶7

.. RESPONDENTS

¶8

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1793, 1794, 1797 AND 1799 OF 2011

¶9

COMMON ORDER:

¶10

The petitioners are the tenants of various premises owned by the common respondent. The respondent initiated proceedings for eviction of the petitioners. The RCs were filed in the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Secunderabad through the President of the respondent – Sangam by name

¶11

Boorugu Suryaprakash Rao. The RCs were dismissed halfway through, on the ground that there was no representation. The Secretary of the respondent – Sangam filed applications stating that Suryaprakash Rao had to leave for a foreign country for treatment and that he has been authorized to pursue the proceedings. The applications were opposed by the petitioners by raising several grounds. The learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the applications and restored the RCs by setting aside the orders of default. Hence these revisions.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent.

¶13

The respondent being an association is naturally represented by elected or nominated persons. It is but natural that the same persons cannot be expected to remain incharge of the management for a long time. Though the RCs were filed through one Sri Suryaprakash Rao, he is said to have left for foreign country for treatment. Another person claiming to be the Secretary filed applications. It is only when a person who is claiming rights in the respondent – Sangam that can object to it. Being the tenants, the petitioners cannot raise objections as to the competence of the person to institute or pursue the matters.

¶14

There are no merits in the revisions. They are accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶16

30-10-2014 ks

M. Jagannath v. Arya Vysya Abhyudaya Sangham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Jagannath v. Arya Vysya Abhyudaya Sangham

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

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.

Sri G. Ravindranath, Vs Sri Rayapu Rajender Prasad

Kalyana Guru Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ch. Vishnumurthy

G. Hemachandra, Vs Arya Vysya Abhyudaya Sangham