ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Natarajan – Appellant
Versus
Padmalakshmi – Respondent
ORDER :
Abdul Quddhose, J.
1. The points for consideration in these revisions are as follows:
(b) Whether sufficient reasons have been given by the petitioner/tenant for condonation of delay of 22 years in filing an application under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.
2. The instant civil revision petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur in unnumbered I.A. SR. 2490 of 2011 in O.S. No. 150 of 2010 and also the consequential order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur in unnumbered I.A. SR. 2491 of 2011 in O.S. No. 150 of 2010.
Brief facts leading to the filing of these revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:
3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the defendant in the ejectment suit O.S. No. 300 of 1974 and the respondent is the legal heir of the plaintiff. Originally the said ejectmen
Nagamanickam vs. M/s. Gopalakrishnan and Brothers reported in (1997) II MLJ 122
Sri Ahobila Madam rep. by its Power Agent vs. Revenue Court
S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs. S. Rama Iyer reported in 1983 2 MLJ 300
Sriramula Ramachandran and others vs. V. Sriramula Bhoodamma and others reported in AIR 1994 AP 79
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.