J. Santhosh v. M. Nirmal Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI in CRP.No.3434 of 2025 J. Santhosh Proprietor, Guess Collections, Basement No.213/214, Kapilavastu Complex, Purasawalkam High Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai 7.

..Appellant(s) Vs

1. M. Nirmal Kumar S/o.Moolchand Maheswari, No.3, Crescent Park Road, T.Nage, Chennai 17.

2. Aarti Maheswari W/o.M.Nirmal Kumar, No.3, crescent Park Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 17.

3. Amarth Kawar Bafna W/o.Shanthilal Bafna, No.88, 4th Floor, Kapil Park Bulding, Alagappa Road Chennai 84.

4. Style Spirit D.No.213 and 214, Purasawalkam High Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai 7.

5. Poorvika Mobiles D.No.213 and 214, Purasawalkam High Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai 7.

6. Salai Enterprises D.NO.213 and 214, Purasawalkam High Road,

Purasawalkam, Chennai 7.

7. J.J.Mobile World D.No.213 and 214, Purasawalkam High Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai 7.

8. Singapore Gold House D.No.213 and 214, Purasawalkam high Road, Purasawalkam High Road, Purasawalkam, Chennai 7.

9. Mummy Fashion Rep.by its Proprietor, Jaganathan, D.No.213 and 214, Purasalkam, Chennai 7.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 151 of CPC., to grant a time six month to the petitioner to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the Petition premises to the Respondents 1 and 2 / Decree holders and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court. For Appellant(s):

No appearance For Respondent(s):

MR.S.VASUDEVAN FOR R1

ORDER

The first respondent has appeared through counsel.

2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, it is submitted that, in terms of the earlier order of this Court, the petitioner has

handed over possession of the property to the first respondent, and the first respondent has also taken possession of the property.

3. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has vacated the premises and handed over vacant possession. This Court had already granted time to the petitioner to vacate the premises, and the said direction has been complied with.

4. Though there is no representation for the petitioner, it is seen that the original tenant has handed over possession to the first respondent/landlord. Since the order granting time to vacate the premises has been duly complied with, nothing further survives for consideration.

5. Recording the above, this petition is dismissed. 02-06-2026 MPA

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

MPA in CRP.No.3434 of 2025 02-06-2026