A. SATYANARAYAN SHAH versus M. YADIGIRI

A. SATYANARAYAN SHAH versus M. YADIGIRI

A permanent wooden structure with walls and roof, standing on land and included in a lease, qualifies as a 'building' under Section 2(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The plea regarding jurisdiction (that the premises is not a 'building') cannot be allowed for the first time at the revision stage.

Parties
Appellant: A. Satyanarayan Shah; Respondent: M. Yadigiri
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment in C.r.p. No. 2317 of 1994
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad order restored.
Legal Topics
Definition of 'building' Under Lease/rent Control, Eviction Proceedings, Bonafide Requirement, Jurisdiction of Rent Controller
Property Law Landlord Tenant Law Definition of 'building' Under Lease/rent Control Eviction Proceedings Bonafide Requirement Jurisdiction of Rent Controller

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Satyanarayan Shah

Appellant

M. Yadigiri

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment in C.r.p. No. 2317 of 1994

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a wooden structure standing on land qualifies as 'building' under Section 2(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960
  2. 2 Whether eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller were maintainable in respect of the wooden structure
  3. 3 Whether the plea that the premises did not constitute a 'building' could be raised for the first time in revision

Ratio Decidendi

A permanent wooden structure with walls and roof, standing on land and included in a lease, qualifies as a 'building' under Section 2(iii) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The plea regarding jurisdiction (that the premises is not a 'building') cannot be allowed for the first time at the revision stage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad order restored.

Orders

  • Landlord (appellant) entitled to execute order for possession by filing execution application before Controller.
  • Controller to give reasonable opportunity to tenant for vacating premises before delivery of possession.