Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
A.Vimalakumari – Appellant
Versus
D.Rhaagesh Saah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments presented regarding representation and default. (Para 1 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. court observation on the execution of possession. (Para 2 , 4) |
ORDER
Heard Mr.S.L.Sudarsanam, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant and Mr.K.S.Navin Balaji, learned counsel for the caveator.
2. This revision has been filed challenging the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority.
3. It is contended by Mr.Sudarsanam, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant that though caveat had been filed in the present revision and counsel for the caveator was also served with all the papers, on the date when the revision came up for admission, there was no representation on behalf of the caveator and hence, this Court had granted an order of interim stay and adjourned the matter.
4. On the adjourned date, the counsel for the caveator has appeared and brought to the notice of this Court that the possession was delivered to the respondent/caveator (landlord) on 11.07.2025. Recording the said submission, the stay granted by this Court was vacated and this Court also called for the records of the trial Court/ Executing Court.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
