Madras High CourtCRP/1296/2021dismissed as infructuous

P.Raman Reddy v. Meenakshi

2021-09-21Honourable Mr Justice G. Chandrasekharan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21.09.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN P.Raman Reddy ...

Petitioner / Respondent versus 1.Meenakshi 2.K.Savitha ...

Respondents / Petitioners PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960, to call for the records and set aside the Order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority cum IX Small Causes Court at Chennai in R.C.A.No.104 of 2018 dated 13.02.2020, confirming the order of the Rent Controller cum XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.O.P.No.516 of 2016 dated 24.11.2017 and the petition for eviction in the above R.C.O.P.No.516 of 2016, may be dismissed.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ramana Reddy For Respondents : Mr.Dinesh Kumar 1/4

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority cum IX Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A.No.104 of 2018 dated 13.02.2020, confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller cum XVI Small Causes Court, in R.C.O.P.No.516 of 2016 dated 24.11.2017.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that, R.C.O.P.No.516 of 2016 was filed on the ground of owners occupation. During the enquiry before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner denied the title of the respondents. Therefore, the eviction was ordered on the ground of owners occupation and denial of title. Against the order of eviction, the petitioner / tenant preferred R.C.A.No.104 of 2018 and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller on both grounds. Against the said judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, now the tenant has vacated the premises and handed over the key. He further 2/4

submitted that, the landlord is liable to pay the advance amount of Rs.75,000/- and a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- spent on repairing the premises. However, it is not for this Court to go into all these aspects now. It is for the petitioner / tenant to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. 4.

It is not in dispute that, now the petitioner / tenant has vacated the premises and handed over the key. In view of this changed circumstances, nothing survives in this Petition. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is closed, as infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there is no order as to costs. 21.09.2021 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No psa / sri To 1.The IX Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2.The XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

3/4

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.

psa / sri 21.09.2021 4/4