P.S.NARAYANA
Omkar Tele – 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 tenant and the landlords respectively as against the common order made in R.A.No.220 of 2002 and R.A. No.192 of 2002 being aggrieved of the portions of the order and the relief made in R.C.No.476 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. Smt. Manjiri S Ganu, the learned counsel representing tenant would maintain that the order of eviction made by the Appellate Authority is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel also would maintain th
S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman: AIR 1985 SC 582. (Para 24)
Linga Pentamma and others v. T. Jagadishwar Rao and others: 2006 (1) ALT 111 (D.B.). (Para 27)
Munnalal (died) and others v. Engiarg Pershad: 2007 (4) ALT 49. (Para 29)
Hari Prasad Badruka v. Tellukunta Laxmi and others: 2000 (1) ALT 551. (Para 32)
Mohammed Gulam Mustafa v. Mohammed Abdul Jabbar: 2006 (1) ALT 423. (Para 33)
Satyanarayana v. Moizuddin Khan: 2006 (4) ALT 478. (Para 39)
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.