1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6619 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP )No.4647 of 2008)
Erukula Veeraiah Dead by LRs. ... Appellants
Versus
Premnath & Anr. ...Respondents
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 16th of
November, 2007 passed by a learned Judge of the
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No.5867 of 2005
by which the High Court had rejected the Civil
Revision Petition and accepted the concurrent
findings of fact arrived at by the courts below in
respect of the eviction proceeding filed at the
instance of the landlords/respondents, inter alia, on
2
the ground of willful default and denial of title in
respect of the premises in question.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and after considering the materials on record
including the impugned order as well as the orders of
the courts below, we are of the view that no
interference is called for in the present case. As
noted herein earlier, two grounds which were alleged
by the landlords/respondents for eviction of the
appellant were, namely, willful default and denial of
title. Both the grounds were accepted by the courts
below and order of eviction was passed.
4. Although the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant basically urged the first ground of
willful default but in view of the findings arrived at by
the courts below, on the other ground, namely,
denial of title of the premises in question, we are not
inclined to go into this submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant as we find that the courts
below rightly came to the conclusion that the suit for
3
specific performance of the agreement for sale in
respect of premises in question filed at the instance
of the appellant having been dismissed, the ground
alleged by the landlords/respondents, namely, denial
of title of the premises in question must be found.
That being the position, there cannot be any escape
for the appellant from his eviction in respect of the
premises in question under the aforesaid ground
alone. Accordingly, there is no need to deal with the
submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant in the facts and circumstances of the
present case which has already been stated herein
above. The appeal is thus dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
5. However, considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, particularly that the appellant has also been
residing in the suit premises, we grant time up to 31st of
May, 2009 to the appellant herein to handover peaceful
vacant possession of the premises in question subject to
4
the condition of submitting usual undertaking before this
court within one month.
……………………J.
[Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi; …………………….J.
November 10, 2008. [V.S.Sirpurkar]