LAWS(APH)-2013-2-15

ABDULLAH Vs. MOHD. ABDUL RAHEEM,HUSSAINI

Decided On February 18, 2013
ABDULLAH Appellant
V/S
Mohd. Abdul Raheem,Hussaini Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 17-2-2012 in C.R.P.No.761/2012, whereby this Court, inter alia, directed the respondent-Contemnor to vacate the schedule premises within a period of four months, later extended till 31-7-2012 by order dated 29-6-2012 in CRPMP No.3490/2012 in the said revision petition.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing mulgi No.23-1-432/2, Hussaini Koti, Kotla Ali Jah, Hyderabad. The contemnor is the tenant of the said premises. The petitioner filed R.C.No.462/2007 in the Court of the learned I Additional Rent Controller-cum-XIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for eviction of the contemnor. By a detailed order dated 30-7-2010, the learned I Additional Rent Controller, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, has allowed the eviction petition and ordered eviction of the contemnor. The said order was questioned in R.A.No.266/2010. The learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, by his Judgment dated 16-12-2011, dismissed the appeal granting two months' time to the contemnor to vacate the petition schedule premises. Three days before the expiry of the time allowed by the lower appellate Court, the contemnor filed C.R.P.No.761/2012 against the above mentioned orders. This Court heard the case at the admission stage whereat the petitioner has entered appearance for his client as the respondent in the revision petition. When this Court expressed its view that having regard to the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below based on sound analysis of the facts and thorough reasoning, the revision petition had no merit, the learned counsel for the contemnor submitted that his client may be given reasonable time for vacation of the demised premises. Considering the said request and keeping in view the fact that the contemnor had been carrying on business in the demised premises for a long time, he was permitted to remain in possession thereof for a period of four months, subject to the following conditions:

(3.) The petitioner shall continue to pay the rents in future till the subject premises is vacated; and