CHALLARAM AND CO Vs. PRAGALLAPATI ADI KUMAR
LAWS(APH)-1992-11-13
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 24,1992

CHALLARAM AND CO Appellant
VERSUS
PRAGALLAPATI ADI KUMAR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

JALAL and SONS VS. SITA BAL [LAWS(APH)-2001-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
M A RAOOF VS. MOHD GHOUSE [LAWS(APH)-2003-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
M A RAOOF VS. MOHAMMAD GHOUSE [LAWS(APH)-2003-11-54] [REFERRED TO]
GARIPALLI RAJASREE VS. KONDAPURAN MALLESHA [LAWS(APH)-2008-6-72] [REFERRED TO]
GANGONI SAYARAM VS. GUPTA AND COMPANY [LAWS(APH)-2001-9-183] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BOTH the Courts found that the bona fide plea of the party that he requires it for his business purpose has been accepted. Now, it has been contended that the only statement that has been made in the re-examination has been taken into consideration to find out that there is financial assistance for him. What all that can be proved is that he has got the intention to run the business and that intention must be real and bona fide and the mere allegation, by itself, is not sufficient. With regard to the intention that has been made by him, he has stated in the chief-examination itself as a witness. But, however, in the re-examination, it has been mentioned about the financial assistance as to how he was able to get the financial assistance by selling jewels of his mother. The probable assistance that may be available from the sale of jewellery has also been spoken to by him. It is not necessary that a particular amount was made available as on the date of filing of the petition. The possibility of raising the fund, as stated by him, can be accepted or not is a matter that has to be decided with reference to the evidence that is available on record. The two Courts have considered this aspect and found that bona fide requirement is there. Now, 7 years have also elapsed and the landlord is also a physically handicapped person. Taking all this into consideration, I find no case made out for interference. However, as he has got business and has to make his own arrangement, though 7 years are over six (6) months time is granted on his giving an undertaking that he will deliver possession on or before1-6-1993 and continue to pay the rents regularly till that date. The civil revision petition is dismissed with the above observations.
;


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