T SUNIL KUMAR Vs. S G EDULGRI AND SONS
LAWS(APH)-1992-12-3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 02,1992

T.SUNIL KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
S.G.EDULGRI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PADMA RAMMURTHY V. M.RAGHA [REFERRED TO]
HEMRAJ NIMA V. RAJNARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
B.ESWARAIMA V. A.APPU RAO [REFERRED TO]
VARIETY EMPORIUM VS. V R M MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM NAINA [REFERRED TO]
GULABBAI VS. NALIN NARSI VOHRA [REFERRED TO]
M LAKSHMINARAYANA VS. M SURVAKANTHAM [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV DEO TULSHAN VS. JAGADISH PRASAD TULSHAN [REFERRED TO]
NARPAT RAJ VS. BABULAL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

GOPINATH VS. MANMOHAN SHAH [LAWS(APH)-2001-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTHILAL VS. OMPRAKASH [LAWS(APH)-2004-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTHILAL VS. OMPRAKASH [LAWS(APH)-2004-12-33] [RFERRED TO (PARA 16)]
RAVINDRA KUMAR VS. SHRINATH COMPLEX [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-187] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUKAR VS. RAMESH [LAWS(MPH)-1996-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
VINODILAL VS. UPBHOKTA SAHKARI BHANDAR LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-1994-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SAQAWATH ALI BHAKSHI VS. SHAIK MOHD IQBAL [LAWS(APH)-2011-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH BHATI VS. LRS OF HAR KANWAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2010-8-89] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This revision is filed under S. 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' by the landlords against the judgment of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No- 7/1987 reversing the order of the Rent Controller in R.C. No. 506/ 1979.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the filing of this revision are in brief as follows: The petition schedule premises bearing D. No.9-1-47 situated at Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad originally belonged to one Rajamma Widow of Balaiah, The petitioners are her grandsons. She had leased out the property to the second respondent herein on monthly rental basis. It is a non-residential building. The second respondent had sub-let the premises to the first respondent who is carrying on business in the said premises. Rajamma executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the suit premises on 31-3-1972. The petitioners filed a petition under S. 10(3)(a)(iii)(b) of the Act for eviction of the respondent contending that they require the premises for the business which they propose to commence.
(3.)The respondent contested the matter stating that the petitioners do not require the premises for carrying on business and that they have filed the petition for eviction as the respondent refused to enhance the rent as demanded by them. Originally the petition was filed against the first respondent alone but later the petitioners got the petition amended by impleading the second respondent contending that the premises was leased out to the second respondent by the landlord and that the first respondent is the sub-tenant of the second respondent. The petitioners subsequent to the filing of the petition had taken a malgi situated in Naredpalli on rent and have started business in Generals goods and Bakery and got this incorporated in the petition by way of amendment.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.