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

O R D E R  

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

1

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

2

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

3

the condition of submitting usual undertaking before this

court within one month.         

……………………J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; …………………….J. November 10, 2008. [V.S.Sirpurkar]

4