Erukula Veeraiah Dead By Lrs vs Premnath & Anr

Erukula Veeraiah Dead by LRs. ... Appellants

Versus

Premnath & Anr. ...Respondents

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 16th of

November, 2007 passed by a learned Judge of the

High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.5867 of 2005

by which the High Court had rejected the Civil

Revision Petition and accepted the concurrent

findings of fact arrived at by the courts below in

respect of the eviction proceeding filed at the

instance of the landlords/respondents, inter alia, on 2

the ground of willful default and denial of title in

respect of the premises in question.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and after considering the materials on record

including the impugned order as well as the orders of

the courts below, we are of the view that no

interference is called for in the present case. As

noted herein earlier, two grounds which were alleged

by the landlords/respondents for eviction of the

appellant were, namely, willful default and denial of

title. Both the grounds were accepted by the courts

below and order of eviction was passed.

4. Although the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant basically urged the first ground of

willful default but in view of the findings arrived at by

the courts below, on the other ground, namely,

denial of title of the premises in question, we are not

inclined to go into this submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant as we find that the courts

below rightly came to the conclusion that the suit for 3

specific performance of the agreement for sale in

respect of premises in question filed at the instance

of the appellant having been dismissed, the ground

alleged by the landlords/respondents, namely, denial

of title of the premises in question must be found.

That being the position, there cannot be any escape

for the appellant from his eviction in respect of the

premises in question under the aforesaid ground

alone. Accordingly, there is no need to deal with the

submission made by the learned counsel for the

appellant in the facts and circumstances of the

present case which has already been stated herein

above. The appeal is thus dismissed. There will be no

order as to costs.

5. However, considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, particularly that the appellant has also been

residing in the suit premises, we grant time up to 31st of

May, 2009 to the appellant herein to handover peaceful

vacant possession of the premises in question subject to 4

the condition of submitting usual undertaking before this

court within one month.

........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; .........................J. November 10, 2008. [V.S.Sirpurkar]