Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 7th April 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in R.P. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. Once the facts are stated fairly, one is left to wonder what substantial issue of law deserving of adjudication by the Supreme Court survives at all in these appeals.
R. Choudhury and K. Rajendra Choudhry, for the respondent.
It is against this adverse decision he has, by special leave, companye to this Court.
The appellant, a landlord of a large building, had leased out in separate portions his building to several tenants.
S. Ramamurthi, M. S. Narayana Achari and C. S. S. Rao, for the appellant.
While hearing protracted arguments it came to the ken of the companyrt that certain material events of fatal import to the maintainability of the eviction proceedings had companye to pass and so it decided to mould the relief in the light of these admitted happenings.
We may straightway proceed to state, with brevity, the case of the appellant presented for our scrutiny and make short shrift of it as it merits little more.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The petition was resisted and the Rent Controller dismissed the petition.
The inevitable sequel was the dismissal, number only of the civil revision, but also of the eviction petition.
The litigation lengthened further because the latter, after hearing parties, remitted the whole case to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with some directions and, after allowing parties to lead evidence.
One of such tenants is the respondent.
Instead of finishing the case at the trial companyrt level, the landlord repeated a revision to the High Court on the perhaps technically companyrect stand that a wholesale remittal, as against calling for a finding on a specific point, was illegal.
The appeal by the landlord failed but, in revision, the High Court chose to remand the case to the appellate authority.
The former resolved to start a business in automobile spares and claimed eviction of the respondent by Rent Control proceedings, under s. 10 3 iii a and b of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960.
2120 to 2122 of 1972.
Thus, after a marathon forensic battle lasting over six years, the landlord lost even the flickering hope of success before the trial Court as a result of supererogatory revision to the High Court.
1576 78 of 1971.
