S.RATNAVEL PANDIAN
Chinnaraju Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Bavani Bai – Respondent
The respondent-tenant in H. R. C O. P. No. 50 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif) of Tirupattur, has directed this revision petition questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment made in C. M. A. No. 3 of 1980 on the file of the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur) dismissing the appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case which led to this revision can be stated thus: The landlord, the respondent herein, filed I. A. No. 100 of 1979 seeking the permission of the Rent Controller to amend the H. R. C. petition by correcting the door number of the petition-mentioned premises as 56 from the wrongly mentioned door no. 57. This prayer was opposed not by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application and permitted the landlord to have the door number corrected as 56 as prayed for.
3. Aggrieved by that order, the tenant preferred C. M. A. No. 3 of 1980 before the appellate authority who dismissed the appeal, holding that the appeal is not maintainable either in law or on facts and observing that the remedy open to the petitioner was to file a revision against the impugned order of the Rent Controller. Now, this
Natarajan v. State of Madras (1960) 2 MLJ. 150; I.L.R. (1960) Mad 449; (1960) L.W. 113
Santhanam Iyer v. Somasundara Vanniyar (1958) 1 MLJ.400; I.L.R. (1958) Mad. 827; (1958) L.W. 381
Thangavelu v. Arumugam Pandithan (1962) 2 MLJ. 24;
Peria Maria Goundan v. Ramaswami Goundan (1962) 1 MLJ. 106;
Bant Singh Gill v. Shanti Devi (1969) 1 S.C.J. 370; (1969) 1 S.C.R. 615; A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 270
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.