Back
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Voonna Mohana Rao, S/o. Appalanarasayya – Appellant
Versus
Kondapalli Rasachakravarthini, W/o. Jagan Mohana Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(V. Gopala Krishna Rao, J.) :
This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.113 of 2009 on the file of District Judge, Srikakulam, dated 18.09.2012, confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.187 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, dated 30.07.2009.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the Original Suit No.187 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.
3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.187 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, with a prayer to vacate the defendant from the suit schedule shop and for recovery of arrears of rent.
4. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, decreed the suit by ordering (i) the defendant to vacate the plant schedule property and to deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiff within three months from the date of decree, failing which plaintiff is at liberty to recover the possession through process of law; (ii) the defendant is directed to pay Rs.8,500/- to the plaintiff towards the arrears of rent from October, 2005 to February, 2006; and (iii) the defenda
The amended Section 32(c) of the Rent Control Act restricts civil court jurisdiction over eviction suits for tenants paying rent below specified thresholds.
Res Judicata – Rule of res judicata does not strike at root of jurisdiction of Court trying subsequent suit – It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on public policy.
The jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted by the Rent Control Act provisions, making eviction suits based on oral agreements unenforceable and void.
Point of law: The effect of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC was considered in recording such observations. It was not an instance with reference to application of Order XLI Rule 27(1)(aa) CPC. This claus....
The court affirmed that a lease is terminated by efflux of time and issuance of quit notices, leading to unauthorized possession by the tenant, with no substantial question of law for appeal.
The court affirmed that eviction proceedings under the Transfer of Property Act remain valid despite subsequent enactments, provided they were initiated before the new law's applicability.
The court upheld the Tribunal's order for payment of rent arrears under Order 15-A of CPC, emphasizing the necessity of summary enquiry for disputed amounts.
The acceptance of rents irregularly by the landlord does not amount to waiver of the right to terminate the lease, and the provisions of the Rent Control Act do not apply to the case.
A civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession of vacant land leased out to a tenant, even if the tenant has constructed a shed on the land, provided that the plaintiff....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
