Dismissed

A.B. Joseph (Expired) v. Akkladevi Parameshwar

Telangana HC6 Apr 2023CRP/951/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the refusal to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner in a rent control proceeding. The High Court found no error in the trial court's reliance on municipal inspection reports regarding the structural life of the premises.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

A.B. Joseph (Expired) Vs Akkladevi Parameshwar — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^2s86 ]

¶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 SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 951 OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 23.0'l .2O23 in l.A No. 208 o'f 2022 in R.C. No. BB of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal Rent Control, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

A.B. Joseph (Expired), S/o late A.B. Anthony, Represented by LRs,

¶10

J. Victor, S/o A.B. Joseph, Aged about. 49 years, Occ. Private Services,

¶11

J. David, S/o A.B. Joseph, Aged about .43 years, Occ. Private Services,

¶12

All Fl/o H.No. 1-9-91/AJs, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.

¶13

[t/rs. Pushpa Threza, W/o. Late A.B- Joseph, Aged about 73 years, Occ. Senior Citizen, H.No.1-9-9'1/A/5, Ramnagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

Mrs. Mary Margaret, W/o. Late Alexander, aged about 55 years, Occ. Service, F!to. 1^'1 -D Block, Bansilpet, Secunderabad.

¶15

Mrs. Jonna, Wio. Late Sunny, aged about 53 years, Occ. Housewife, H.No.1 1-12-188/A, Brahmin Basthi, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

¶16

Christina, Wo. Michael Joseph, aged about 40 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. 1 1 -2-47 217, Namalgundu, Secunderabad.

¶17

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

AND

¶19

Akkladevi Parameshwar, S/o late Gangaram, Age about. 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No.204, Yogan Apartment, Street No.10, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad

¶20

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶21

fA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant the stay in

¶23

R.C.No.BB of 2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Rent Controller, Small Causes Court at Hyderabad in the interest of^justice and pass order or orders as the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. M. GOUD

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶29

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.951 oF 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel Sri M.M.Goud for the petitioners.

¶32

Respondent herein filed R.C.No.8S of 2015 in the Court of Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad praying to direct the petitioners herein to vacate and handover the vacant physical possession of one portion in house bearing no.l-9-91/A15, plots Nos. 19 and 19C on land admeasuring 159 square yards in S.No.85 of Ramnagar, Hyderabad. [n thc said case, petitioners herein filed I.A.No.208 of 2022 under Order XXVI Rule 10-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) praying the Court to appoint Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the schedule property with Technical Assistants. The trial Court, having considered the submissions on either side, observed that on the complaint given by the owner to the GHMC for demolition of petition schedule premises, the GHMC people came to the subject premises, inspected with their Engineers and told that life of the petition schedule premises would be further 50 more years and it is not necessary for reconstruction and that they have also collected the photographs at the time of inspecting the petition schedule premises. The Court below observed that the respondent stated in his counter that GHMC has issued demolition notice after inspecting petition

I I

schcdule premises- Against the aileged demolition^{notice, the} filed O.S.No.429 ol 2O1a in^{the Court of VI Junior Civil} petitroners Judge,^{City Civil Court atHyderabadand the same ispending} consideration.^{The Court below observed that respondent therein} failed to^{prove the contentioirthat GHMC has issueddemolition} notice^{treating the subject premisesis in dilapidated condition and} that there^{is no needfor any report from the Civil Engineer nor for} appointment^{of Advocate-Commissionerto inspectthe house.The} trial Court^{observed thatMunicipal authorities havealready} observed,^{which is competent Departmentto decide the age of the} buiiding and^{aiso its strength.They have also statedabout nearly50} years more life to the petition^{schcdule plemises.} As^such,no further inspection^{would berequiredtoappointAdvocate-} Commissioner and that the main^R.C., is^coming up for^further respondent's^{evidence and to avoid further delay.}

¶37

Having regard to the facts noted in giaragraph-9 of the Order, I do not see^{any error} in^{the decisionof the Court} below in^rejecting the application^{for appointment} of^{Advocate-Commissioner.} I see^no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaleous^petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

To,

¶39

Sd/.G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGIS TRAR i/TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

¶40

The Principal Rent Controller, City Small Causes Court at Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri M M Goud, Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two CD Copies irF gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610412023

ORDER

t: T r-{
c'
q v
.s
)"i
s*
\ ei
t
i) Hei!<br>

¶45

CRP.No.951 ot 2023

¶46

DTSMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION^PETITION

¶47

,,.(5.

A.B. Joseph (Expired) v. Akkladevi Parameshwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.B. Joseph (Expired) v. Akkladevi Parameshwar

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

Mohd. Saleem Vs P.Naveen Kumar

Sri Kota Krishna Venkata Satish Vs Smt. Kota Venkata Sameera