Telangana High Court
CRP/6441/2012 of M/s. Sri Daya Clinic Vs Arifa Fareed on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6441 of 2012 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order, dated 14.11.2012, in I.A.No.221 of 2011 (I.A.) in R.C.No.315 of 2011 (R.C.) on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. The
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDYCIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6441 of 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order, dated14.11.2012, in I.A.No.221 of 2011 (I.A.) in R.C.No.315 of 2011 (R.C.)on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.
2. The petitioners herein are also the petitioners in the I.A. andrespondents in the R.C. and the respondent herein is also therespondent in the I.A. and petitioner in the R.C. For convenience sake,I refer the parties as arrayed in the I.A.
3. The petitioners filed the I.A. under Order XXVI, Rule 9 read withSection 151 of C.P.C. for appointment of an advocate-commissioner toinspect the R.C. schedule property and to note down the physicalfeatures therein including water connections, taps and accommodationavailable in the premises of respondent, but the same was negativedby the Rent Controller on the ground that the appointment of thecommissioner for the aforementioned purpose, was nothing butcollection of necessary evidence, which not allowed by law. Whereasaggrieved by it, the petitioners preferred this revision. 4. Heard.
5. The R.C. was filed by the respondent herein, who is the landlordof the scheduled property, for eviction of the petitioners herein, who arethe tenants from the schedule property on the ground of willful defaultof payment of the corresponding rent and for bona fide requirement. As admitted, the petitioners filed R.C.No.371 of 2011 to direct therespondent for restoration of water connection in the petition scheduleproperty, which according to the petitioners, was disconnected illegallyby the respondent. Both the matters are for trial together. Admittedly,there is a proviso under Clause 3 of Section 15 of A.P. Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for restoration of amenities. The respondent is denying the water connection. So,physical verification is only the mode available to the petitioners underOrder XXVI, Rule 9 of C.P.C. to take necessary recourse on thatbehalf. Further, under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of C.P.C., such collection ofevidence is permissible. The observation of the court below is notcorrect. Hence, I am inclined to allow the petition.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the lowercourt is directed to appoint an advocate-commissioner to visit thepetition schedule locality and to note down the physical features assought for. On the appointment of advocate-commissioner, he shallcarry out the work taking necessary measures within three (3) weeksfrom the date of receipt of the corresponding Warrant. Further, therespondent (petitioner in the R.C.315 of 2011) is very old, hence theRent Controller is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously aspossible. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Civil RevisionPetition shall stand closed.
________________________________
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J
31[st] December, 2012Anr
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
Anr
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6441 of 2012
Date:31.12.2012