N.Veera Kumar vs Vijayawada Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5872 AP

                                         1


                    HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH


MAIN CASE NO:      A.S.No.203 of 2022
                              PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.No.      Date                        ORDER                     OFFICE NOTE



 1.      05.09.2022 BSB, J
                                  I.A.No.1 of 2022
                           This petition is filed to grant
                    stay     of   all   further     proceedings
                    including execution of the judgment
                    and decree dated 06.04.2022 passed in
                    O.S.No.199 of 2016 on the file of VIII
                    Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
                           The       contention      of    the
                    petitioner/appellant is that though
                    there is an allotment of lease of
                    Shadikhana for the period between
                    13.06.2013 to 12.06.2016, there was
                    no agreement of lease entered in the
                    said period as even by then repairs
                    were not affected to the same and the
                    property was not delivered in spite of
                    representations          made     to   the
                    corporation and that the premises was
                    not fit for a use of function hall as
                    there was no kitchen due to its
                    demolition for repairs and thus the suit
                    liability does not arise at all for want
                    of agreement of lease, however the
                        2


trial Court erroneously decreed the
suit for arrears of lease amount for the
said period.
         Accordingly, the learned counsel
for the petitioner further submitted
that even as per the letter under Ex-
A1,      the   defendant/appellant           was
called     upon   to       pay     Rs.4,91,340/-
within 7 days of the receipt of the
letter and enter into an agreement of
lease and get it registered and thus it
is clear that there is no agreement of
lease between the plaintiff and the
defendant.
         Since there is a prima facie
justification in the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, it is
a fit case to grant interim stay as
prayed     for,   at       least    before   the
respondent appears in response to the

notice in this petition.

As such, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal service of notice on the respondent through RPAD and file proof thereof.

Post on 13.10.2022. Till then, interim stay is granted as prayed for.

_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J

A.S.No.203 of 2022 Post the matter on 13.10.2022.

_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J PGT