Shaik Khwaja v. Venkadaru Subba Rao
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
1. Venkadaru Subba Rao, S/o. Venkayya, Business, R/o. R.R. Palace, Brahmin Street, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
2. Bolisetty Sudhakumar, S/o. Madhusudana Rao (died), R/o. Pulabhavari Street, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....Respondents
The petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and Grounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. G. Dharma Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. V.V.L.N. Sarma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, the Court observed that this is a case of surrender of tenancy and inducting another tenant in the place of Original Tenant and directed the parties to appear before this Court on 24-12-2004; Therefore you namely;
1. Shaik Khwaja, S/o. Shaik Mastan, Mulsim, Proprietor of Classic Krishna Tailors, District. ..... Petitioner Vijayawada,
2. Venkadaru Subba Rao, S/o. Venkayya, Business, R/o. R.R. Palace, Brahmin Street, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Respondent are hereby directed to appear before this Hon`ble Court on 24-12-2004 at 10.30. a.m to which date the case stands posted. // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To
Shaik Khwaja, S/o. Shaik Mastan, Mulsim, Proprietor of Classic Tailors, Vijayawada, Krishna District. (BY SPEED POST)
Venkadaru Subba Rao, S/o. Venkayya, Business, R/o. R.R. Palace, Brahmin Street, Vijayawada, Krishna District. (BY SPEED POST with a copy of petition and grounds)
G. Dharma Rao, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (BY SPECIAL MESSENGER)
V. V.L.N. Sarma, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (BY SPECIAL MESSENGER)
One spare copy. Ksv Ksv Date of drafting: 13-12-2004 HIGH COURT CHSRKPJ DATE: 10-12-2004 NOTE: LIST ON 24-12-2004 FOR APPEARANCE OF PAFRTIES
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
A.P. Buildings (Lease Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 — s. 22.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Dec 2004.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.