Dismissed

S Mundada, Hyderabad v. Shravan Badruka, Hyderabad and Anr.

Telangana HC31 Dec 2021CRP/594/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition filed under the Building (Lease, Rent Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition as infructuous after accepting counsel's submission that the matter had been settled between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No. 5940 of 2016 dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.

S Mundada, Hyderabad Vs Shravan Badruka, Hyderabad and… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE THIR D#YE E M B E R rwo rH o ;i']I S Ti J fff fSfi

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

crv LREVIsto N PETITION N O:5940 F20 16

¶6

Petition under Section 22 0f Buirding (Lease, Rent Eviction) contror Act 1960, aggrieved bythe Orderdated.26-10-2015 passed in RA No.17.t of 2o140n the fite of the Additional chief Judge, city Small causes court at Hyderabad preferred against order dt: 2gro3r14 in R.c.No. 'r83 of 2010 on the fire of the court of the r Additional Rent Controller at Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

S l,4undada, S/o Kanayanlal I,4undada Occ: Business R/o Begum Bazar, Hyderabad

¶9

...REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶10

AND

¶11

Shravan Badruka, S/o Mukundlal Badruka Occ: Business

¶12

Shyam Badruka, S/o lr4ukundlal Badruka Occ: Business I Both Residents of H.No. 8-2-686/9/9 & 10, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT

¶14

CRPMP. NO: 746 OF 2016

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed in RA NO.171 of 2O14 dated:26.10.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of the Revision Petition .

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. DAMODAR MUNDRA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents :SRl. R A ACHUTHANAND

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON,BLE^{DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA} CIVI LREvISION ON^NO.5940F2016

¶20

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Learned^{counselfor the petitioner submitsthat the matter} hasbeensettledbetweenthepartiesand,therefore,theCivil

¶23

Revision Petition^{may be dismissed'}

¶24

Recording the^{said submission' the Civil RevisionPetitionis}

¶25

dismissed^{as infructuous.}

¶26

There shall be^{no order as to costs'Miscellaneous} . T.l-l.19*9^{1r i-nlvr::.*9 i:e :!:r t :-l e'li *:'1i *e d}

¶27

S D/.I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSI STANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To. Court at 1. The Additional^{chref Judge'gitv} ?I"l]-g::les i rn"^{1 Additionat RentController at HyderaDao} . 3. one^{cc to sRl.onrvrdoni{rt'ruNDRA'-Advocate [oPUC]} ;. il; cc^{io snr. n n ncHuiHnNAND' Advocate[oPUCj}

¶32

Court at^Hvderabad

¶33

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶34

One^{SPare CoPY}

CDL TR

HIGH^COURT

DATED:31^11212021

ORDER

CRP.No.594 of²⁰¹⁶

E STAru:
1 t{
oo-) 02 ttB ?n2? rl
)F
ljt:<;:t T{

¶41

DISMISSING THE C.R.P AS INFRUCTUOUS.

¶42

t-( rl4
ol

S Mundada, Hyderabad v. Shravan Badruka, Hyderabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Mundada, Hyderabad v. Shravan Badruka, Hyderabad and Anr.

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

A Mallaiah, Karimnagaram Vs D.Laxmaiah, Karimnagar and 3 Others

Devaram Amrutha Reddy, Nalgonda Dist Vs Yelakakanthmma, Nalgonda Dist

Smt a Ben, Hyderabad and 4 Others Vs Sri J Hansraj, Hyderabad and 6 Others

Soma Hyderabad City Centre Pvt. Ltd, Hyd Vs the a.P.S.R.T.C., Hyd

C Prakash, Hyd Vs Shravan Badruka, Hyd and Another

C Rama Murthy, Hyd Vs Shravan Badruka, Hyd and Another