RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. P BHASKAR RAJU
LAWS(APH)-2003-11-51
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
November 11,2003
RAJENDRA KUMAR
Appellant
VERSUS
P.BHASKAR RAJU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RICE VS. CONNOLLY [REFERRED TO]GANGADHAR SAHOO VS. A.R.M. PATRO [REFERRED TO]
MOTOR GENERAL TRADERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
S SUNDARAM PILLAI KOUSALAYA DEVT MURUGESA MUDALIAR N S DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL THAHIRA BEEVI M BALAKRISHNAN K R KRISHNAN VS. V R PATTABIRAMAN:P LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARYA:SELVARAJ CHETTIAR:B S RAMACHARI:R A MUTHIAH NADAR:FATHIMA BAI:P BHANUMATT [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. GANPAT LAL [REFERRED TO]
M BHASKAR VS. J VENKATARAMA NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
G KAUSHALYA DEVI VS. GHANSHYAMDAS [REFERRED TO]
M ARUL JOTHI VS. LAJJA BAL [REFERRED TO]
E PALANISAMY VS. PALANISAMY [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. AWTAR KRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
CH ESHWARAIAH DIED VS. G SANGHI [REFERRED TO]
KHIVRAJ CHORDIA VS. G MANIKLAL BHATTAD [REFERRED TO]
RAJESWARI VS. VASUMAL LALCHAND [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
K ABDUL RAHEEM VS. HAJEERAPPA [LAWS(APH)-2005-3-10] [RELIED 0N (SC) (PARA 4)]PITTALA KISTAIAH VS. GANTA LAXMI [LAWS(APH)-2006-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
YELETI PEDAVEERAJU VS. VANKA JAYALAKSHMI [LAWS(APH)-2005-12-86] [REFERRED TO]
ATTADA GANGU NAIDU VS. DEEPALA CHANDRA MOULI [LAWS(APH)-2011-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
VEGENDLA VIJAYALAKSHMI AND TWO VS. GADDIPATI NAGA HIMABINDU AND SEVEN [LAWS(APH)-2013-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
SRI DURGA KALA MANDIR VS. S. PULLA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2014-10-128] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Rajendra Kumar, the unsuccessful landlord in both the Courts below is the Revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, in short referred to as "Act" hereinafter.
(2.)The landlord filed R.C.No.480/84 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad which was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed R.A.No.2/91 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
(3.)Sri P.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner made the following submissions. The learned Counsel pointed out that there is default in payment of certain amounts and no doubt Section 11 of the Act was not invoked and there is material definitely to show that the procedure was not followed in payment of rents and hence the default shown should be taken as wilful default. The learned Counsel also commented that though the payment of rent is highly irregular, the Courts below had totally erred in arriving at the conclusion that the payments are regular. The learned Counsel further submitted that mere sending of money orders may not be sufficient. The learned Counsel also had elaborately argued about the need or necessity and had contended that even if it is of joint family, the evidence clearly shows that the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the landlord is well established. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on several decisions in this regard. Per contra Sri Virendra Kumar, the learned Counsel while making elaborate submissions had contended that none of the grounds had been established. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded by both the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and had contended that absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with such concurrent findings. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on several decisions to substantiate his contentions in this regard.
(2.)The landlord filed R.C.No.480/84 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad which was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed R.A.No.2/91 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, which was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
(3.)Sri P.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner made the following submissions. The learned Counsel pointed out that there is default in payment of certain amounts and no doubt Section 11 of the Act was not invoked and there is material definitely to show that the procedure was not followed in payment of rents and hence the default shown should be taken as wilful default. The learned Counsel also commented that though the payment of rent is highly irregular, the Courts below had totally erred in arriving at the conclusion that the payments are regular. The learned Counsel further submitted that mere sending of money orders may not be sufficient. The learned Counsel also had elaborately argued about the need or necessity and had contended that even if it is of joint family, the evidence clearly shows that the ground of bonafide personal requirement of the landlord is well established. The learned Counsel also had placed strong reliance on several decisions in this regard. Per contra Sri Virendra Kumar, the learned Counsel while making elaborate submissions had contended that none of the grounds had been established. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings recorded by both the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and had contended that absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with such concurrent findings. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on several decisions to substantiate his contentions in this regard.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.