THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1432 of 2014 Between: Kothapalli Issac And B.Ramesh Babu Dated 14th August, 2014 …Petitioner …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Praveen Kumar Veerjala Counsel for the respondent: Sri Md.Kaleem Pasha The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 21.01.2014, in R.A.No.5 of 2013, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby the learned Judge has confirmed the order, dated 22.12.2012, in R.C.No.5 of 2011, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
The petitioner is the tenant of the respondent. The respondent filed R.C.No.5 of 2012 for eviction of the petitioner under Section 10(2) (i) and 10(3) (a) (i) (a) of the A.P.Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. By order, dated 22.12.2012, the Rent Controller has allowed the petition filed by the respondent by upholding the plea of bona fide requirement and wilful default, and has accordingly ordered eviction. In the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order, the lower appellate Court has confirmed the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner filed this civil revision petition.
At the hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted and the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the EP filed before the trial Court, the petitioner has given an undertaking that he will vacate the premises by 04.08.2014. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as the petitioner failed to vacate the premises as undertaken by him, the executing Court issued warrant to the bailiff for delivering possession of the property to the respondent and that in pursuance thereof, the bailiff executed warrant today by taking possession from the petitioner and delivering the same to the respondent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is not aware of this fact submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent.
Inasmuch as the petitioner has given an undertaking before the Rent Controller and that he is stated to have been evicted from the premises through execution, the civil revision petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2846 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th August, 2014
VGB