Allowed

Thumrnapudi Nagaratnam v. Mallavarapu Kasi Visweswara Rao

Telangana HC17 Sept 2016CRP/4272/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition regarding eviction for bona fide requirement and rent default, the High Court confirmed the lower courts' eviction order. However, granting one month's stay, the Court directed the tenant to vacate by September 2017 upon payment of damages for use and occupation, avoiding a fresh eviction petition.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order confirmed; tenant granted one month time to vacate by September 2017 upon payment of monthly damages for use and occupation.

Thumrnapudi Nagaratnam Vs Mallavarapu Kasi Visweswara… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶2

C.R.P. No.4272 OF 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 08.07.2016 passed in R.C.A. No.03 of 2013 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kakinada confiriming the order and decree dated 05.12.2012 passed in R.C.C. No.40 of 2011 by the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakindada.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.

¶6

The revision petitioner is the tenant under the revision respondent. The revision respondent maintained R.C.C. No.40 of 2011 for eviction of the tenant on two grounds viz., one is for bonafide requirement and the other is for willful default of rent and for personal occupation. The rent controller, allowed the case, vide order dated 05.12.2012 passed order of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement by disbelieving the alleged wilfull default.

¶7

The evidence on record shows the landlord got several shops and there is also an admission but for to say he did not establish any of those shops are vacant. It is on that ground as allegedly not properly considered in passing the order of eviction on the so-called bonafide requirement, the tenant maintained the appeal i.e., R.C.A. No.03 of 2013, no doubt, went unsuccessful vide judgment dated 08.07.2016. Wherein it is observed that tenant cannot dictate terms and it is for the landlord to chose which of the shops is convenient to him and even coming to one of the

¶8

¶9

Dr SSRB, J CRP_4272_2016

¶10

shops with name and style of business running by another tenant as Durga Bhavani Garments sought for eviction for bonafide requirement and there was a compromise with the tenant and inducted Jaipur Pearls and Beads, consequently that pearls shop occupied the premises and it is not lying vacant to occupy. In fact, the Tribunal put the burden on the tenant further instead of considering the shifting of the same on the landlord. No doubt, the same is confirmed in the appeal as it is for the landlord to produce the record for the best evidence available with him otherwise any of the premises claimed undisputedly belongs to him and lying vacant and not suitable for the proposed medical shop business of the sons of the landlord. Leave about no record produced regarding any of the sons having pharmacy qualification with any pharmacy certificate for entitlement to the medical shop licence and to run.

¶11

However, in the course of hearing when sought for interference in the revision against the concurrent finding of the Courts below; the landlord and tenant represented by respective counsel came to an understanding and requested this Court while confirming the current findings only granted one month time to the tenant from today to continue and meantime to secure any alternative accommodation and vacate by end of September, 2017, however by paying same amount of monthly rent towards damages for use and occupation from today onwards for every month and in the event of the failure of the tenant to vacate by end of September, 2017 to execute the same by virtue of this order also without any necessity of filing fresh eviction petition. Accordingly, the said

¶12

¶13

¶14

Dr SSRB, J CRP_4272_2016

¶15

submission is recorded and the revision is disposed of by confirming the eviction order. No order as to costs.

¶16

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶17

shall stand dismissed.

¶18

_____________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

¶19

Dt.17.09.2016 knl

¶20

Thumrnapudi Nagaratnam v. Mallavarapu Kasi Visweswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thumrnapudi Nagaratnam v. Mallavarapu Kasi Visweswara Rao

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

Kamble Raju Vs Shaik Baba

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Gundeboina Komuraiah

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Tippereddy Naga Reddy

A. Amarender Reddy, (Died) Vs Rayaparthy Sumalatha

Shaik Sardar Vs Vaka Ramireddy

C.Suresh Kumar Reddy and 7 Others Vs Vaagdevi Educational Society and 16 Others