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

1987 Supreme(AP) 609

A.RAMANUJULU NAIDU, VENKATARAMA REDDY
B. Eswaramma – Appellant
Versus
A. Appu Rao and etc – Respondent


AMARESWARI, J.

( 1 ) THESE four revision petitions arise out of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for short, the Act. The common question involved is whether the eviction petition fails for want of particulars as to the nature of the business which the landlord proposes to commence in the demised premises where eviction is sought under s. 10 (3) (a) (iii) (b) of the Act. As there is a divergence of judicial opinion, the question is referred to a Division Bench by our learned brother Jagannadha Rao, J. That is how the matters are before us now.

( 2 ) WE will refer to the parties as Landlord and Tenant for the sake of convenience.

( 3 ) MR. O. Adinarayana Reddy and Mr. C. V. N. Sastry, who appeared for the tenants in these cases contended that in a case where the landlord seeks eviction on the ground that he requires the premises for a business which he proposes to commence, it is necessary to state the nature and particulars of the business in the eviction petition. In the absence of these pleadings the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed not- withstanding the fact that evidence was adduced at the trial. In support of















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