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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 378

D.MURUGESAN
R. Kumaresan – Appellant
Versus
Kewalchand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.P.Gopalan, Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Tambaram. The respondents are the landlords.

2. The respondents filed the above R.C.O.P. under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking for an order to put them in possession of TT schedule property. Pending the R.C.O.P., the landlords filed I.A.No. 144 of 1997 under Section 11(4) of the Act. Since the tenant did not file counter, he was set ex parte on 13.11.97 and the tenant was given two weeks time to pay the rental arrears and the petition was directed to be posted on 27.11.97. On the said date eviction was ordered granting one month time to the tenant to vacate the petition mentioned premises. The tenant thereafter filed M.P.No.21 of 1999 to condone the delay of 533 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order of eviction. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned District Munsif cum Rent Controller by order dated 5.1.2001. It is against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner woul







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