SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(AP) 416

C.V.N.SASTRY
Chennawar and Company – Appellant
Versus
Madhusudan Rao – Respondent


C. V. N. SASTRY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel on both sides.

( 2 ) THIS is a revision filed by the tenants questioning the orders of eviction passed against them by the two Courts below concurrently under the provisions of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (in short the Act ).

( 3 ) THE respondent/landlord is an advocate practising in City Civil Court at Secunderabad. The suit premises is a non-residential building wherein the petitioners are carrying on wholesale business in textiles. The premises consists of two rooms, one on the ground floor and the other on the first floor, located in a busy commercial area known as Tobacco Bazaar in Secunderabad. The rent payable is Rs. 400. 00 per month. The respondent/land-lord filed the eviction petition on the sole ground that he requires the suit premises for his personal use, that is, for the purpose of carrying on his profession. It is his case that presently he is running his office in a rented premises in R. P. Road, Secunderabad, which is very small, congested and wholly insufficient for running his office. The said rented premises consists of a single room on the mezzanine floor measuring 9 1/2












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top