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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 675

K.GOVINDARAJAN
Feroz Khan – Appellant
Versus
S. M. S. S. A. Farook Ali – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.P.K. Sivasubramaniam, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.V. Raghavachari,
Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. The respondent has filed in R.C.O.P.No.2802 of 1996 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai for evicting the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller in his order dated 24. 1.2000 allowed the petition for eviction and granted two months time to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises. After expiry of the period of two months, the respondent has filed the Execution Petition on 23. 2000. Since the respondent has not produced the certified copy of the decretal order, the office returned the papers and ultimately on representation by the counsel in open Court, the Court on 4. 2000 directed the office to number the same. On 4. 2000 notice was ordered and on 24. 2000, the Execution Petition was ordered and possession has been taken. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the Execution Petition cannot be sustained, without enclosing the decree copy, and that without even proper notice, the execution has been effected.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petition has submitted that the petitioner is having a right of appeal against the order of the learned Rent Control and






































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