Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD137; 2007(4)ALT348; AIR2007NOC2064(FB)(AP)
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. On behalf of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Yethirajulu, the Hon'ble Justice G. Bhavani Prasad and himself).Issue under reference:Whether Section 32(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') as brought into force by Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') has effect on the cases pending on the date of its coming into force is the question referred for the consideration of the Larger Bench. The Background Facts:2. Section 32(b) of the Act, which exempted buildings constructed on or after 26-8-1957, was held unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court in Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 121. In order to fill up the void created by the said judgment with regard to provision for exemption of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD145
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. The only substantial question of law that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the appellate Court was justified in refusing to consider the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A) Department, dated 29-12-1983 on the premise that the said issue has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sreeramulu v. Tahera Yousuf Kadri : 2000(3)ALD173 (FB), and in not examining the validity of the said G.O. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1998SC602 .2. A few facts, which are relevant, may be noticed as under:3. The appellant is the defendant/ tenant. Respondent No. 1/landlord filed a suit in O.S. No. 3756 of 1997 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. It was the case respondent-plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP70
Venkatesam, J.1. The only point for determination in this S.R. is, whether a revi-sion petition filed under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, XV of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is barred by limitation if not filed within 90 days from the date of the order as laid down by Role 41-A (2) of the Appellate Side Rules of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). If that rule governs the case, the revision petition is barred by limitation and the petitioner should get the delay condoned on sufficient cause being shown. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the rule has no application to the case as it is governed by Section 22 of the Act, according to which the revision petition could be filed at any time.2. Considering the importance of the question raised, one of us (Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.) directed that the matter should be posted before a Bench. At our request, Sri G. Venkatarama Sastr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT437
ORDERD.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.1. This CRP is filed against the order dated 12-7-1990 in RCA No. 10 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Warangal. The facts leading to the filing of the present CRP are somewhat strange and appalling.2. The revision petitioners are the tenants. They originally took the premises on rent from the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent one Mr. Dhanraj. Rents were being paid upto 1980 to late Dhanraj. After Dhanraj died, disputes arose and then RCC No. 45 of 1981 was filed. It is the claim of the present revision petitioners that as the landlords were refusing to receive rents, they filed RCC 31 of 1981 and that they went on depositing the rents. It was ultimately found by the Court that Mr. S.S. Parvaiz, the advocate who was appearing for the present revision petitioners, deposited only a few amounts and he appears to have misappropriated various amounts that were said to have been paid to him. Ultimately he ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1996AP149; 1995(3)ALT853
ORDER1. In all these three Revision Petitions common question of facts and law arises and hence, 1 am disposing of the same by this common judgment. I refer to the ranking of the parties as arrayed in the trial Court.2. The proceedings arise under the A.P. Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners in C.R.P. No. 520 of 1992 are the original tenants. They have challenged the order of eviction passed against them on the ground of default in paying arrears of rent in R.C.C. No. 80 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsiff), Rajahmundry, dated 15th October, 1990; before the lower appellate authority i.e., sub-Judge, Rajahmundry in R.C.A. No. 20 of 1990. To this R.C.A. No. 20 of 1990, the landlord had filed cross-objections challenging the order of the Rent Controller in refusing eviction on the ground of alternative accommodation secured by the tenants. The lower appellate Court dismissed R.C.A. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1971AP298
ORDER1. These two revision petitions arise out of the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Building under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.2. The facts that have given rise to the two petitions may briefly be stated. On 5-11-1963 the landlord presented an application for the enhancement of the rent. The petition for enhancement A.B.A. No . 42 of 1963, was decided on 27-4-1965. The leased premises consist of two distinct parts, one used for a residential purpose and the other for a non-residential purpose and the other for a non-residential purpose. The premises are situate in an important locality at Tenali. It is borne out by the evidence that the Indian Bank is located opposite the leased premises. The Post Office is located in the immediate vicinity. Form the evidence one can easily gather that there is a good deal of business activity around the leased premises, not to speak of the admission that part of the leased premises had been used as godown...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(5)ALD807; 2004(5)ALT755
1. The judicial somersault for a decade in the hands of the Division Benches and the Full Bench and the decisional upheavals inherent in the system continue to make the litigant under the perennial predicament and speculation. This is one such instance, we are called upon to clear the riddles.2. The matter is brought before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge (BPRJ) in regard to the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court reported in Motichand Jain v. Jaikumar M, : AIR2004AP136 (FB).3. The issue that arises for consideration is(a) Whether A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 is retrospective or prospective in operation?(b) Whether there is any distinction between vested right and right to forum? 4. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Court Act, 1972 was brought into statute book with effect from 1.11.1972. The pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts both original and appellate and as also the forum are being amended from time to time. By A.P. Civil Court (Amendment) Act, 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002AIHC4073
B.S.A. Swamy, J.1. These two appeals involving commonquestions of law and facts arise out of a common judgment passed by a learnedsingle Judge of this Court and they can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The parties herein are referred toas they are arrayed in the suits for the sake of convenience.3. In these two appeals, this Courtis called upon to decide the effect of deletion of Section 47 of the AndhraPradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Act No. XXIof 1950) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act'. The main issueto be decided in these appeals is whether both the suits (O.S.Nos.1001 of 1978and 1174 of 1981) filed by the plaintiffs are liable to be dismissed as thesuit transaction is hit by Section 47 of the Tenancy Act.FACTUAL BACKGROUND:4. The defendant in both the suits,Mohd. Qutubuddin filed O.S.No.38 of 1963 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate(West), Hyderabad against Syed Basharat Ahmed and his wife Smt. UmmatulBasheera Begum for perman...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD392; 2006(5)ALT772
ORDERA. Gopal Reddy, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the permit No. 475/94 in file No. 35/IP6/94 issued by the respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the sixth respondent permitting respondents 4 to 6 to construct a multi-storied building complex in premises No. 4-1-1225, King Kothi Road.2. Necessary facts which are relevant for disposal of the writ petition are briefly stated thus: Late A.B.H. Khursheed who is the owner and possessor of the premises bearing No. 4-1-1225 had constructed two separate buildings, one on the south and another on the north facing the main CC road leaving a passage of about 10 feet in-between the two buildings. The second petitioner purchased the southern side of the building, namely, D. No. 4-1-1225/2 in the year 1975 and since then she has been in possession of the said property. Late Khursheed executed a will in favour of his unmarried sister Ms. Khursheed Banu and as per the wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988AP226
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The short question of significant practical importance that arises in this civil revision petition is whether an order determining any question within See. 47 C.P.C, passed after amendment of definition of 'decree', in proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, is appealable or revisable. A Division Bench of this court- noticing difference of opinion in the decisions of Division Benches ,in Challa Ramamurthy v. P. Adinarayana' Sons, : AIR1985AP42 and Gopu Peddi Reddy v. Gopu Thirupathy Reddy, : AIR1981AP362 referred this civil revision petition to the Full Bench, which is now before us. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in a narrow compass and may be stated thus:The revision petitioner is the husband. He suffered a decree dated 18-2-1972 in O.S. No. 191/71 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur, filed by his wife (the respondent) for recovery of her maintenance On 22-9-1975 the petitioner filed EA N6.81...
Tag this Judgment!