P.S.NARAYANA
Rajnikanth Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Abdul Rahman – Respondent
1. These two civil revision petitions are filed under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (lease, rent and eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) by the tenants and the landlords respectively as against the common order made in R.A.No.202 of 2002 and R.A. No.219 of 2002 being aggrieved of the portions of the order and the relief made in R.C.No.474 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
2. In view of the commonality involved in both these civil revision petitions and in the light of the fact that both the R.As. aforesaid also had been disposed of by a common order by the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, the Appellate Authority, these civil revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order by this Court.
3. Heard Smt. Manjiri S Ganu, learned counsel representing tenant and Sri Hanumanthu Rajagopal Rao, learned counsel representing landlords.
4. The tenants filed C.R.P.No.6422 of 2006 and the landlords filed C.R.P. No.2113 of 2008 being aggrieved of the common order made in R.A. No.219 2002 and R.A. No.202 of 2002 which were preferred as against the
S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman: AIR 1985 SC 582. (Para 22)
Linga Pentamma and others v. T. Jagadishwar Rao and others: 2006 (1) ALT 111 (D.B). (Para 25)
Munnalal (died) and others v. Engiarg Pershad: 2007 (4) ALT 49. (Para 27)
Hari Prasad Badruka v. Tellukunta Laxmi and others: 2000 (1) ALT 551. (Para 30)
Mohammed Gulam Mustafa v. Mohammed Abdul Jabbar: 2006 (1) ALT 423. (Para 31)
Yadvendra Arya and another v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta: 2008 (1) SCJ 659 = AIR 2008 SC 773. (Para 40) 10
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.