D.Ramesh v. Govind Rao Pophale
Case brief
What is this about?
In a civil revision petition regarding eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Control Act, 1960, the court granted the tenant an additional six months to vacate the premises, considering their livelihood source, maintaining the eviction order previously confirmed by the appellate court.
What did the court decide?
Granted six months extension to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession, with a direction to file an undertaking affidavit within a week.
What the court decided
HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.3 1 7 2 of 2 0 1 6
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings ( Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short ‘ the Act 1960) is filed by the tenant in occupation of the premises i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 3, before II Addl. Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and Appellant in R.A.No.74 of 2013 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.
- The landlord filed petition under Section 10(2) (i), 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act 1960 for eviction of tenant, mostly on the ground of willful default, bona fide requirement, sub-letting, change of uses and causing nuisance etc., But, the Rent Controller disbelieved willful default and other grounds except ordering eviction under 10(2) (i), 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Act 1960 and the Appellate Court by Order dt.25.02.2016 confirmed the Order passed by the Rent Controller granting four months time to evict the premises and deliver vacant possession of the schedule property, which expired by 10th of this month.
- During hearing, Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, requested this Court to grant one year time to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession of the premises. But, the learned counsel for respondent opposed the
2 MSM,J
CRP_3172_2016
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the tenant is entitled to be granted additional time to vacate the premises beyond the period already granted by the appellate court.
Whether relief should be granted considering the tenant's business is their main source of livelihood.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Tenant
- respondent
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Coram
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRP/3172/2016
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court