Syed Mumtaz Ali v. Shaik Hyder

- The Civil Revision Petition is filed under the caption for orders. No representation for the petitioner. The CRP is filed aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 30-08-2006 in R.A.No.362 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner in the CRP is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. R.C.No.467 of 1999 is filed by the landlord on the file of II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad under Section 10(2)(i) of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 to allow the petition with costs and deliver vacant

possession of the said premises. The learned trial Court, by Judgment and decree dated 10-10-2002, allowed the petition with costs directing the respondent therein to vacate the schedule premises. Aggrieved by which, the tenant filed R.A.No.362 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. By Judgment and decree dated 30-08-2006, the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad dismissed the appeal confirming the eviction order passed by the learned II Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in its decree and Judgment dated 10-10-2002 in R.C.No.467 of 1999. Aggrieved by which, the tenant filed the present C.R.P. This Court, while admitting the CRP on 03.11.2006, granted interim stay of eviction for a period of six weeks. It is further ordered that in case the respondent had filed any application for withdrawal of the amount deposited towards the rents, he shall be permitted to withdraw the amount only after furnishing security and directed the matter to be listed after four weeks. On 20.12.2006, after hearing the matter, this Court held petitioner/tenant had already handed over the possession of the suit premises to the brother of the respondent and he is no more in possession of the schedule property and accordingly, the CRPMP No.7500 of 2006 is dismissed. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments and even there is no representation on 29.07.2009 for the petitioner. On 11.08.2009, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and it was represented by the learned counsel for the respondent that pursuant to the order passed by the Court below, the tenant (petitioner in the CRP) had already vacated the premises and hardly, there is anything to be adjudicated and requested the matter to be posted for orders. Today, the matter is listed in the caption for orders. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner had already vacated the petition schedule, the CRP has become infructuous. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 18th August, 2009 AMD