Civil Revision against appellate order denying stay of eviction. Court held no interference warranted as tenancy was admitted and valid quit notice received under Section 106.
Permits eviction as per trial Court decree and denies stay of execution of eviction portion.
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 M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
C.R.P. No.605 of 2019
O R D E R:
This Revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dt. 18.02.2019 in I.A.No.214 of 2019 in A.S.No.3 of 2019 of XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.
2
3
schedule property since that is the relief claimed in the suit. He also contended that no valid reasons had been given by the appellate Court in refusing the stay of eviction of the petitioner.
4
14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand dismissed.
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
02.04.2019 dv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court ought to interfere with the appellate Court's refusal to grant stay of eviction despite the petitioner being admitted as tenant.
Whether the proprio motu jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution warrants interfering with the lower appellate Court's order in a revision petition.
Whether the admitting the tenancy and the issuance of a valid quit notice justified the denial of stay of eviction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
M.S. Ramachandra Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
