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

1992 Supreme(AP) 527

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY
K. Lakshmana Rao – Appellant
Versus
Gulam Habeeb Khan – Respondent


S. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THESE 4 revision petitions arise under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The petitioners are the tenants who are unsuccessful in both the Tribunals below and suffered orders of eviction from non-residential premises owned by the three respondents/landlords. The respondents had instituted the proceedings under the above Act for the eviction of the petitioners herein on the ground of personal requirement and after comprehensive enquiry into the said aspect, the Rent Controller held that though for the 1st respondent, personal requirement was not proved beyond doubt, as proof varied with pleadings, the said Tribunal had emphatically found that the personal requirement of respondents 2 and 3 for setting up their business is bona fide. So far as the factum of bona fides as regards the requirement for personal occupation by the respondents 2 and 3 is concerned, there is concurrent finding of fact and the same is not open in revision petitions for challenge on the appreciation of evidence and rightly, Mr. Mallikarjuna Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not canvass the findings of fact and h








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