Partly allowed

Mohd. Saleem v. P.Naveen Kumar

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023CRP/921/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition filed under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and CPC Section 115. It upheld the lower courts' eviction order, noting the petitioner admitted non-payment of rent and vacant possession of the premises. The Court granted two months time for vacating.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, granting two months time from the date of order for the petitioner to vacate and hand over the subject premises to the respondent.

Mohd. Saleem Vs P.Naveen Kumar — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[²⁵⁸⁶¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:921 oF 2023

¶7

Petition under section 2.2 0f the A.p Buirdings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) contror Act, 1960 aoainsr the Judgment art"J b'o'liiv)023 in RCA.No. 18 of 2oi1 in RC'No'es or 2014-on tne rire oiifie c;ilH; chi5 Judse, ciry sma, causes Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mohd. Saleem, S/o Mohd. Jahangir Aged about. 55 yrs, Occ. Business Rl/o H.No.20-1-1ee t34 to 37, uan;iii aeium'iJrEii,"Siiriiri Banda, Hyderabad

¶10

...PET!TtONER

¶11

AND

¶12

P.Naveen Kumar. S/o Late p.Narsing Rao Aged about. 5.1 yrs, Occ. Business R/o H. No.20-2-488, Hussaini At;;, tiyd;;d;;"^-*"'

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

IA NO: 10F 2023

¶15

Petition under section .1^{5-1 cpc praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit fited in support of the p"iition, it" itigt C"r; ;;; ;'J[rr"O " :|ry^of^{ail.furtherproceedings_ of the'judgmeni} in'ncn No..r8 0f 2021 dt.3o_o1_ 2023 on the fire of the c,ri-ef Judge, cit, s;;ir causes cor.t JHvlu-rlo"o ccinfirming the order in R.c.No.95 "t zorq dt.ost1or2o21 on the fire of rV Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Coui, ffyAeraOad

¶16

Counsel for the^petitioner: SRl. M DAS MOHAPATRA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: AADESH VARMA

¶18

The Gourt made the following: ORDER

¶19

PNR,J CRP No 921 oI2023

¶20

)

¶21

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PEIITION No.921 OF 2023

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

During the life time, the father of the respondent, Iate P.Narsing Rao, Ieased out two shops forming part ol house bearing Municipal Nos.20-4-199 lllD and 2O-4-199 ltlE, on the first floor, admeasuring 474 square feet situated at Manjili Begum Haveli, Shalibanda, Hyderabad, in the year 1990 on monthly rent of { 1,000/- exclusive of electricity charges. It was an oral tenancy. The rent has been enhanced from time to time. Father of the respondent died on 27.12.2OO4. According to the respondent, petitioner paid rent up to April, 2012 and after that, committed default in payment of rent. In spite of several requests made for vacating the premises and handing over the possession, petition did not yield and vacate the premises. In those circumstances, respondent hled R.C.No.95 of 2Ol4 in IV Additional Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad. By Order dated 05.10.2O21, the said R.C. was allowed directing the petitioner to vacate the subject premises. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner hled R.C.A.No.1B of 2O2l in the Court of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad. By Order dated 30.01.2023, Appeal was dismissed, conhrming the Order passed by the Court below and petitioner was directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition

¶25

PNR,J CRP No. l o[ 2023 3

¶26

schedule premises within two months from the date of the Order. Aggrieved thereby, this Revision is Iiled

¶27

Heard learned counsel Sri M.D.Mahapatra for petitioner and the learned counsel Sri Aadesh Varma for respondent.

¶28

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent, petitioner himself admitted that all the bills under Ex.Rl show the consumption of electricity charges as zero as he was not running the business for the last five to six months. In other rvords, petitioner is not running the business in the subject premises for the last more than six months as admitted in cross-examination. It shows that for the last more than two years, the premises is not in occupation by the petitioner.

¶29

Both the original Court and Appellate Court have considered all the aspects and have rendered decisions assigning reasons to come to a conclusion arrived at by them. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a tenant and he failed to pay the monthly rents by the time the R.C., was decided, I do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the Courts below warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶30

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner requests two months time for vacating and handing over the possession of the

¶31

PNRJ CRP^{No 921} of202l

¶32

¶33

subject^{premises to the respondent.The same is recordedand the} Civil Revision Petition is^{accordingly disposed of, grantingtwo} months time from today for^{the petitioner to vacateand handoverthe} subject premises to the^{respondent.Pendingmiscellaneous petitions,}

¶34

if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/. B.CHANDRA^PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, '1 . The Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court^{at Hyderabad} i. iii; iv noJr. nt,it^{C,jnt.ir"r,citv small causes court' H-vderabad}

¶39

d; ci't"^{sai H,r ons MoHAPATRA Advocate[oPUCl}

¶40

;. o;; cc io sru^{AADESHVARMA Advocate [OPUC]} 5. Two CD CoPies KS K *F

¶41

HIGH COURT

¶42

DATED:0610412023

¶43

of It L ,i,
A1 A<br>uq $"
F-<-
s<br>G

1t<br>

ORDER

CRP.No.921 of 2023

DISPOSING OF THE CRP

^\t4g\ { v}

Mohd. Saleem v. P.Naveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Saleem v. P.Naveen Kumar

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

Syed Qadeer Vs Syed Naseer

M/s. Sreenilaya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. S. N. Srinivas

Sri Gayatri Japayagna Parishat Vs A.N. Dasarath

M/ s. Edessary Pharma Vs Dr. Prakash P Ghatage

A.B. Joseph (Expired) Vs Akkladevi Parameshwar

Sri Kota Krishna Venkata Satish Vs Smt. Kota Venkata Sameera