SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 1823

A.KULASEKARAN
Mrs. Yashoda Raju – Appellant
Versus
A. Kuselan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: -

Judgment :-

This revision is posted for admission and I heard the counsel for the petitioner.

2. The tenant is the revision petitioner, who has filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 270 of 2001 in RCOP No. 44 of 2000 seeking permission to file additional counter, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority, hence this revision petition.

3. On 07-06-2000, the respondent herein has filed RCOP No. 44 of 2000 before the learned Rent Controller, Ootacamund for eviction against the petitioner herein under Section 10 (2) (1) and 14 (1) (b) of the Rent Control Act. The petitioner herein has filed his counter on 28-09-2000 through his then counsel. In Para-2 of the counter, the petitioner has admitted that the respondent herein is the landlord. The petitioner also filed suit O.S. No. 74 of 2000 before the District Munsif, Ootacamund to restrain the respondent herein from dispossessing her without due process of law. In the said suit, she has also filed I.A. No. 163 of 2000. In both the suit and interim application, the petitioner herein has mentioned the respondent as her landlord. Not content with, the petiti









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top