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

1985 Supreme(Mad) 41

VENKATASWAMI
Hidayathullah – Appellant
Versus
Appellate Authority (Rent Controller) III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras – Respondent


Advocates:
M.S. Umapathi, for Petitioner; S. Doraiswami, for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER :- When the W.M. Ps. came up for final order, the counsel on both sides agreed for the disposal of the writ petition itself. Hence the writ petition was taken up for disposal.

2. This petition is for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent (Appellate Authority, Rent Control), III Judge, Court of Small Causes, to entertain the appeal RCA No...... of 1984 S. R. No. 23032 against the order in M. P. 863 of 1984 in E. P. 948 of 1984 in HRC 812 of 1981, on the file of the IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and dispose of the same on merits.

2A. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition briefly may be stated. The petitioner is a co-owner of the premises bearing Nos. 180 Anna Pillai St. Madras 1, hereinafter called the suit premises. The 3rd respondent hereinafter called the tenant was a tenant in a portion of the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 40. The petitioner filed HRC 812 of 1981 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default. The petitioner was successful before the Rent Controller as well as before the Appellate Authority and ultimately in this court. Even though the tenant filed an undertaking affidavit in this Cou













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