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

2013 Supreme(AP) 503

G.ROHINI
Naveen Kamal Johar – Appellant
Versus
Madanlal Agarwal – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R.A. Achuthanand, Advocate.

JUDGMENT


The revision petitioner is the respondent in R.C.No.410 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the III-Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The respondent herein filed the said R.C.No.410 of 2011 under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking eviction of the revision petitioner from the petition schedule premises. During trial, the respondent herein/the petitioner in R.C.No.410 of 2011 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. However, the revision petitioner opposed and filed an application (IA (SR) No.999 of 2013) with a prayer to eschew the said chief-examination contending that as per Rule 8 (2) of the Rules made under the Act, the evidence of the parties to the Rent Control case shall be recorded by the Rent Controller in the open Court. The said contention was not accepted by the learned Rent Controller and accordingly by the order under Revision, IA (SR) No.999 of 2013 was rejected. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition by the respondent/tenant in R.C. No.410 of 2011.

Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not fi













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