← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/905/2011dismissed as infructuous

Mrs.Chandran v. Smt.Saroja

2016-08-29Honourable Mr Justice M.V. Muralidaran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.08.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.905 and 1019 of 2011 Chandra .. Petitioner in both CRPs Vs Saroja .. Respondent in both CRPs Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the order dated 28.09.2010 made in I.A.Nos.192 and 193 of 2009 in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 2008 respectively, on the file of the Forum of the Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy (in both CRPs) For Respondent : Mr.V.Raghavachari (in both CRPs)

O R D E R

CRP.No.905 of 2011 was filed against the dismissal order of condone delay petition in I.A.No.192 of 2009 and another Civil Revision Petition No.1019 of 2011 was filed for setting aside the exparte order in I.A.No.193 of 2009. During the course of arguments in both the civil revision petitions, the respondent / landlord has

produced E.P. proceedings passed in E.P.No.58 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam, in which the learned counsel appearing for the landlord made an endorsement on 06.01.2011 that the possession was delivered and the Execution Petition was terminated. Recording the said submissions, the learned Judge / Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam, terminated the Execution Petition, since the possession of the property was handed over to the respondent / landlord. Therefore, nothing survives in both the Civil Revision Petitions.

2.Hence, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

29.08.2016 vs Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To The Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam.

M.V.MURALIDARAN.J., vs C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.905 and 1019 of 2011 29.08.2016