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

1997 Supreme(AP) 955

K.B.SIDDAPPA, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Suresh Gir – Appellant
Versus
K. ahadev – Respondent


( 1 ) THERE are three revision petitions before us filed under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). CRP No. 346 of 1996 and CRP No. 2384 of 1996 are filed by the tenant. CRP No. 2306 of 1996 is filed by the landlord. Both the tenant and the landlord question the order of the appellate Authority under the said Act (Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court) fixing the rent of the demised building at Rs. 650. 00 per month and directing payment of arrears at that rate from the month of December, 1991. Whereas the landlord contend that the enhancement or fixation is too law, the tenant complains that the enhancement from Rs. 210. 00 to Rs. 650. 00 is quite high. It is the contention of the tenant that such enhancement is not warranted and the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority have no jurisdiction to do so.

( 2 ) THE decision of the appellate authority fixing the rent as above is a sequel to the judgment of the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by the landlord i. e. , SLP (Civil) 22602 of 1994. Earlier, the revision petition filed by the tenant against determination of fair rent wa

















































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