1 AHHS,J C.r.P.No. 3637 of 2013 Dated 19.09.2026 APHC010375072013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3637 OF 2013 Between: 1. MAMIDIPAKA TAYARU@SATYAVATHI, W/O LATE LINGA MURTHY, R/O D.NO. 7-2-17, VULLITHOTA STREET, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. NAKKINA SURYA RAO ANOTHER, S/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY, BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 9-21-1, KHAJI STREET, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DISTRICT. 2. NAKKINA SURI BABU, S/O LATE SURYA PRAKASA RAO, BUSINESS, D.NO.9-21-1, KHAJI STREET, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G.DIST. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VINAYAKA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following: 2 AHHS,J C.r.P.No. 3637 of 2013 Dated 19.09.2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3637 OF 2013 ORDER: 1. Mr. Y.Chakradhara Raju, learned Counsel, appeared representing Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy, learned Counsel on record for Petitioner. 2. Mr. S.Siva Nagarjuna, learned counsel, appeared representing Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, learned Counsel on record for Respondents. 3. This Civil Revision Case (for short “C.R.P”) is directed against the order and decree dated 04.02.2013 in R.C.A.No.24 of 2009 passed by Rent Controller Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act (Principal Senior Civil Judge), Rajahmundry. 4. R.C.C.No.45 of 2005 are the proceedings initiated under section 10(2) (i), 10(3) (a) (iii) (b) of the A.P Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, filed by one M.Tayaru @ Satyavathi, seeking the relief of eviction of respondent from the petition schedule property. Said application was allowed. 5. Questioning the same, 2nd Respondent in R.C.C.No.41 of 2026 has preferred an appeal vide R.C.A.No.24 of 2009 and the same was allowed. 6. Questioning the said Judgment of the Appellate Authority, the present Revision Petition has been filed by M.Tayaru @ Satyavathi, the petitioner in the R.C.C. 7. Both learned counsel for the parties would submit that the said building is not in habitual condition, dilapidated and the same was seized by the Municipality. In view of dilapidated condition of the building, the tenant is not in possession of the building and vacated the same. Therefore, the eviction 3 AHHS,J C.r.P.No. 3637 of 2013 Dated 19.09.2026 proceedings do not survive. Further, as per the submissions of both sides, the rights of the parties, if any, as per law are to be agitated elsewhere and nothing is required to be adjudicated in the present C.R.P. 8. Therefore, the proceedings are closed in the presence of both sides counsel in the open court, observing that no further orders are necessary in this matter. 9. In view of the above reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is closed as no further orders are necessary. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _______________________________________ SRI JUSTICE A.HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Dated 19.09.2026 KS Whether the order is : Speaking: Yes Reasoned : Yes Reportable: No Non-Reportable: Yes 4 AHHS,J C.r.P.No. 3637 of 2013 Dated 19.09.2026 48 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3637 OF 2013 Dated:19.09.2026. KS