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

1995 Supreme(Mad) 437

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Renganathan – Appellant
Versus
Pandurangan and Another – Respondent


Advocates:
Ms.Asha for M/s.Sarvabhuman Associates, for Respondents.

Judgment :

This revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the tenant in H.R.C.O.P. No.4 of 1990, on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Tindivanam.

2. By virtue of the impugned order, the Rent Controller allowed the application of the first respondent herein, to get himself impleaded in the proceeding and allowed him to continue the proceeding already initiated by the previous landlord.

3. The original petition was filed by the previous owner as H.R.C.O.P. No.4 of 1990. Pending proceeding, the respondent No.1 purchased the property as per sale deeds dated 212. 1991 and 212. 1991. Thereafter, an application was filed by the very same respondent to get himself impleaded as a respondent in the proceeding, which he subsequently withdraw. Later he filed the present application, namely, LA. No.5 of 1994, for getting himself impleaded as additional petitioner in the R.C.O.P. In the meanwhile, the original petition itself was dismissed for default, and hence, the first respondent wanted himself to be permitted to continue the original petition, or to initiate proceedings for restoration of the original petition.

4. By virtue of the impugned


























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