K. ACHUTA BHAT versus VEERAMANANI MANGA DEVI

K. ACHUTA BHAT versus VEERAMANANI MANGA DEVI

The appellant and second respondent used the terms of the agreement to camouflage the real nature of the transaction, but on a conspectus of clauses and actual conduct, there was not merely a transfer of management rights but of business, proprietary interest, and tenancy rights, amounting to sub-letting under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Accordingly, the order of eviction is justified.

Parties
Appellant: K. Achuta Bhat; Respondent (landlady): Veeramanani Manga Devi; Respondent (second Respondent): Narsimha Murthy
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 September 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Revision Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Sub Letting, Leasehold Interests, Andhra Pradesh Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960
Tenancy Law Eviction Sub Letting Leasehold Interests Andhra Pradesh Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Achuta Bhat

Appellant

Veeramanani Manga Devi

Respondent (landlady)

Narsimha Murthy

Respondent (second Respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From High Court Revision Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant sublet the leased premises to the second respondent under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant and second respondent used the terms of the agreement to camouflage the real nature of the transaction, but on a conspectus of clauses and actual conduct, there was not merely a transfer of management rights but of business, proprietary interest, and tenancy rights, amounting to sub-letting under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Accordingly, the order of eviction is justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Eviction order affirmed
  • Appellant granted six months time from date of judgment to vacate premises, subject to filing undertaking within four weeks