IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2410 of 2014 Between:
Smt.Komara Chandravathi and others And Smt.Boyina Jayalakshmi … Petitioners … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.2410 of 2014 ORDER:
This revision petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2014 passed in RCA. No.4 of 2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge- cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases at Visakhapatnam.
The respondent herein filed RCC. No.20 of 2010 under Section 10(2) (1)(vi) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, for eviction of the revision petitioners from the petition schedule premises with costs on the file of the Rent Controller at Visakhapatnam. The learned Rent Controller Court vide its order dated 21.01.2013 allowed the petition with costs directing the revision petitioners to vacate the schedule premises within one month, from the date of the order, if the revision petitioners fail to vacate the said premises, the respondent herein can evict the revision petitioners by way of executing the order, under due process of law.
Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners preferred an appeal in RCA. No.4 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge- cum-Appellate Court of Rent Control Cases at Visakhapatnam. The learned lower appellate Court vide its judgment dated 05.06.2014 dismissed the appeal with costs confirming the eviction order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the learned Rent Controller Court in RCC. No.20 of 2010 and granted two months time, from the date of the judgment, to vacate the petition schedule premises.
Having aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.06.2014 passed by the learned lower appellate Court in RCA. No.4 of 2013, the revision petitioners filed the present revision petition.
Initially, this matter was listed on 08.08.2014 and at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, directed the matter to be listed next week and thereafter, on 14.08.2014 and on 22.08.2014 the matter was adjourned for next week.
Today morning, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners made a mention that consequent to E.P. filed by the respondent in the revision petition, on 12.09.2014 Bailiff came to the petition schedule premises for evicting the revision petitioners and therefore, unless and until the matter is taken up urgently, as a lunch motion, there is every possibility of evicting the revision petitioners from the premises in question. It is also submitted that the same is informed to the learned counsel for the respondent.
In view of the said submission, lunch motion is granted and the matter is taken up for hearing.
The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners sought to make submissions that the respondent herein claims to be the owner and purchaser of the premises in question and there is a title dispute involved. Further, the finding on the issue of default by both the Courts is incorrect.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently contended that the said plea is no more available to them because both the Courts have concurrently gave a finding that having not challenged the Ex.P.1 and P.2 and the finding thereof given by both the Courts became final. Therefore, the issue of title is no more in dispute.
Eventually, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners sought time of eight months for vacating the premises in question for which, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the time that was sought by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners may be granted subject to condition that they shall deposit the rent on or before 10th of every month for using the premises by the revision petitioners and further the revision petitioners shall also deposit arrears of rent within four weeks from today. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners sought some reasonable time for depositing the arrears of rent and agreed to deposit the rents on or before 10th of every month. Eventually, the learned counsel for the respondent requested for incorporation of default clause in the order.
Admittedly, the revision petitioners claimed to be the tenants and the respondent claimed to be the owner of the petition schedule premises.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without going into the merits of the case, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The revision petitioners are directed to vacate the petition schedule premises and hand it over to the respondent within a period eight months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2. The revision petitioners are also directed to deposit agreed rents on or before 10th of every month, commenced from the month of October, 2014, and on such deposit, before the Court below, the respondent is permitted to withdraw the same, without furnishing any security.
3. The revision petitioners are further directed to deposit arrears of rent within a period of four weeks, in two equal instalments, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. If the revision petitioners violate any of the aforesaid directions, it is open for the respondent to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
With the above directions, this revision petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 16.09.2014 LSK