Madras High Court
Vikesh Kumar O. Jain vs Hemalatha Ben S.Thakker (Died)
Author: G.Chandrasekharan
Bench: G.Chandrasekharan
C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders reserved on Orders pronounced on
18.08.2021 14.09.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019
Vikesh Kumar O. Jain ... Petitioner
Vs
Hemalatha Ben S.Thakker (Died)
1. Kusum S.Thakker
2. Babulal S.Thakker
3. Arun S.Thakker ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) At, 1960 against the fair order and
decreetal order dated 03.10.2018 in RCA No.699 of 2012 on the file of
VIII Court of Small Causes at Chennai in confirming the order and
decreetal order in RCOP No.962 of 2008 dated 30.07.2012 on the file of
XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner .. Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents .. Mr.D.S.Ramesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/24
C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019
and
C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Judge, VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A. 699 of 2012, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P. No.962 of 2008, on the file of the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The respondents are the landlords of the petition mentioned building. The petitioner is a tenant under them. The deceased landlady Hemalatha Ben Thakker filed a petition against the petitioner under Section 10(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for eviction. It is claimed that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. The tenancy is according to English Calendar month. The tenant had paid the rent till February 2007 and thereafter, he has wilfully and wantonly failed and neglected to pay rent from March 2017. The landlady requested the tenant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property for the reason that she wanted the building for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The tenant agreed to vacate the building within two months and stopped making payment of rent from March 2007. Instead https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 of honouring his undertaking, he neither vacated the building nor paid rent from March 2007. In March 2008, he sent a lawyer's notice dated 15.03.2008 and a cheque for a sum of Rs.12,000/- falsely alleging that he paid rents up to October 2007 and the landlady has not issued receipt for the payments made from March 2007 to October 2007 and that a sum of Rs.12,000/- represents the rent for four months from November 2007 to February 2008. The landlady sent a reply denying the allegations and claiming that the tenant is in arrears of rent from March 2007 to March 2008. Even thereafter, the tenant has not paid rent from March 2007 to March 2008. It is clearly a wilful default. The building is very old and is more than 100 years. There are many vertical and horizontal cracks in the building and it is in a dilapidated and very dangerous condition. The building is required for the purpose of demolition and for reconstruction. The landlady has sufficient means for demolition and reconstruction of the building. If the existing building is demolished and reconstructed, the landlady will get increased rental income. Therefore, the petition for eviction is filed on the grounds of wilful default, demolition and reconstruction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019
3. The tenant objected this petition by filing counter stating that the rent was paid in cash. The landlady issued receipt for the payment made till February 2007. Though the rents were paid in time, the landlady was in the habit of issuing receipt only on later dates. The rents for the period from March 2007 to October 2007 were paid. But the landlady failed to issue receipts. Therefore, the respondents sent money order for Rs.3,000/- representing the rent for the month of November 2007. The money order was refused by the landlady. On 03.01.2008, the tenant sent two money orders for Rs.3,000/- each, towards the rent for the months of November and December 2007. Those money orders were refused by the landlady. On 05.02.2008, the tenant sent money orders for Rs.3,000/- representing the rent for the month of November 2007 and that was also refused. On 15.03.2006, the tenant sent a notice along with the cheque of Rs.12,000/- representing the rent for the months of November 2007 to February 2008. Then he filed a petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for depositing the rent. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was given by the tenant to the petitioner/landlady as advance at the inception of tenancy. Rents can be adjusted in advance amount. There is no default, much less wilful https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 default. The claim of building for demolition and reconstruction is not based on genuine reason but made with an intention to evict the tenant.
4. During enquiry before the learned Rent Controller, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined on the side of landlady and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined on the side of the tenant and Exs.R1 to R12 were marked. A memo was marked as Court document. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of wilful default and dismissed the petition filed on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. Against the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default, the tenant had preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No.699 of 2012, along with a petition to receive additional documents. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default and dismissed the appeal. Against the said dismissal, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that not every default is a wilful default, only if a default is supine, indifferent and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 callous default, it can be termed as 'wilful default'. In the case before hand, there is no default, much less wilful default. The tenant had regularly paid the rent. The landlady had not issued receipts for the rents paid from March 2007 to October 2007, forcing the tenant to send rent through money orders from November 2007 and the money orders also had not been received by the landlady. Therefore, the tenant had filed a petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and deposited the rents in the Court. The petition filed in R.C.O.P. No.1046 of 2008 was allowed on 03.12.2009. The petition filed in R.C.A.156 of 2009 against this order came to be dismissed on 03.10.2018. The steps taken by the tenant to send rents through money orders and filing of petition for depositing the rent in the Court shows that the tenant was at no point of time contemplating default. On the other hand, it shows his genuine attempt to pay the rent through legal means. The tenant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance at the inception of tenancy. When the advance amount is available in excess of one month rent and in excess of the alleged arrears of rent, it is the duty of the landlady to adjust the excess advance amount towards arrears of rent, if any. Even if the case of landlady is taken as correct and there is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 arrears of Rs.39,000/-, an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is available with the landlady and the landlady can adjust the arrears, if any, from the advance amount. In that case, there would be no question of default in payment of rent, much less the wilful default.
6. One more submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Rent Controller has observed in his order that the tenant has not produced any material to show the deposit of rent. Those documents relating to sending of money orders had been filed in R.C.O.P. No.1046 of 2008. The order copy of R.C.O.P. No.1046 of 2008 was marked as Ex.R9. However, that was not properly appreciated by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, the tenant filed M.P. No.118 of 2013 in R.C.A.No.699 of 2012 to produce oral and documentary evidence to prove the sending of money orders. The learned appellate authority, though allowed the petitioner to mark those documents as additional evidence, did not grant permission to lead oral evidence. Mere filing of document cannot amount to proof of document. Only if the document is proved by examining the concerned witness, it can be relied. Learned appellate Judge has admitted copy of money order forms, return receipts https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 as Ex.R13. Even after production of documents, the learned appellate authority held that these documents do not relate to default period and concluded that the tenant had committed wilful default. The findings recorded, without giving an opportunity to examine the witness in support of these documents, is contrary to law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments reported in
(i) (1989) 2 SCC 686 (Modern Hotel, Gudur, represented by M.N.Narayanan ..vs.. K.Radhakrishnaiah and others), wherein it is held as follows :-
“9. .In M/s. Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath v. Subhas Kumar Agarwalla, [1987] 4 SCC 546, Salimuddin's case came for consideration. This was also a dispute under the Bihar Act where two months' rent had been paid in advance by the tenant to the landlord on the stipulation that the advance amount would be liable to be adjusted towards arrears of rent, whenever necessary or required. The Court held that the tenant could not be evicted on the ground of default in the payment of rent for two months even if the tenant failed to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 ask the landlord to make adjustment of the advance amount in the absence of any agreement requiring the tenant to inform the landlord as to when such adjustment is to be made. This Court said that when the Rent Act prohibited the landlord to claim such advance payment, the tenant could not be considered to be a defaulter and the doctrine of pari-delicto was not attracted to such a fact-situation.”
(ii) (1996) 3 SCC 45 (K.Narasimha Rao ..vs.. T.M.Nasimuddin Ahmed), wherein it is held as follows “4. It was admitted that a sum of Rs.3000/-
was paid by the respondent to the appellant as advance even though according to Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tamil Nadu Act") the landlord could receive only one month's rent in advance. Accordingly, the excess amount of Rs.2850/- paid as advance by the tenant to the landlord was required to be refunded by the landlord. The question, therefore, is whether the said excess amount paid by the tenant to the landlord being available with the landlord, the tenant can be held to have committed wilful default https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 in payment of rent even though he had not expressly asked the landlord to adjust that amount towards the arrears of rent. ”
(iii) (2005) 7 SCC 317 (G.Reghunathan ..vs..K.V.Varghese), wherein it is held as follows:-
“....... In a case where a substantial amount had been received as advance at the time of letting, which was liable to be refunded without interest on the expiry of the lease, this Court held in Modern Hotel Vs. K. Radhakrishnaiah (1989) 2 SCC 686, that when the amount of arrears of rent was smaller than the advance amount held by the landlord on account of the tenant, there was no default in payment of rent and the grant of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was not justified ....... ” and
(iv) AIR 1987 SC 2302 (Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath ..vs.. Subhas Kumar Agarwalla) wherein it is held as follows:-
........ " It is not now necessary for us to consider the correctness of the observation made by the Full Bench of Patna High Court on the question of default and the right of the tenant to claim adjustment because what https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 was claimed by way of adjustment in the said case was a certain excess amount paid over a long period of 30 years as enhanced rent under a mutual agreement though such payment was contrary to law. But in the case before us the amount of Rs.140 had not been paid as enhanced rent under any such agreement. It was, in fact, an amount which had been paid in advance which was liable to be adjusted whenever it was necessary or required.”
7. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim of the tenant that landlady had not issued receipts for the rents paid from March 2007 to October 2007, is not correct. If really the landlady had not issued the receipt, the tenant should have taken immediate steps for addressing non-issuance of receipts through legal means either by sending notice or by other legal means. That has not been done in this case. With regard to claim of adjustment of the advance amount, the adjustment is possible only if specific request is made by the tenant and only when there is acceptance with regard to arrears. There is no proof filed by the tenant to show the payment of rents from March 2007 to October 2007. The petition filed under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 11/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, relates to November 2007 onwards. The tenant cannot just say that landlady has not issued receipts. The fact of the matter is that the tenant has not paid rent from March 2007 to March 2008 and it is a wilful default. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the tenant had committed wilful default and therefore, learned counsel for the respondents prays for dismissal of this Civil Revision Petition.
8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It is seen from the submission that there is no dispute with regard to the tenancy and the quantum of monthly rent. The dispute boils down to the issue as to whether the petitioner had committed any wilful default from March 2007 to March 2008. It is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioner has wilfully and wantonly failed and neglected to pay the rents from March 2007 inspite of repeated requests and demands. It is further stated that the respondents requested the petitioner to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the property during March 2007. Though the petitioner admitted to vacate the property, he did not vacate nor did he pay rent from March 2007. The petitioner countered this case by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 12/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 stating that the petitioner/tenant has paid rent regularly and respondents were issuing receipt till February 2007. Respondents did not issue receipt for the rents paid from March 2007 to October 2007. Therefore, petitioner sent Money Orders for the rent from November 2007. That was refused by the respondents. Then the petitioner filed the petition under Section 8(5) of the Act for deposit of rent and continued to deposit the rent in the Court. Without considering the deposit of rent in RCOP No.1046 of 2008 and without taking into account the earnest efforts made by the petitioner/tenant to pay the rent, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the courts below ordered eviction. Learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner has not produced Money Order receipts to show the deposit of rent. Money Order receipts cannot be filed for the reason that they were filed in RCOP No.1046 of 2008. Order copy in RCOP No.1046 of 2008 was filed. In the appeal, the petitioner tried to produce the Money Order forms/receipts and returns received by way of additional evidence. Though the learned appellate authority allowed the receipt of documents and marked as Ex.R13, did not allow the petitioner to produce oral evidence in support of these documents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 13/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019
9. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. One is that the petitioner had paid rent without any default. Second is that, assuming if there is any default, the default cannot be considered as wilful default, for the reason that the petitioner had made all the efforts to pay rent through Money Orders and then paying the rent by depositing the rent into the Court. One more submission is that it is not disputed by the respondents that there is an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- lying with the respondents. Respondents/landlords are not entitled to more than one month rent as advance. The alleged arrears of rent in this case is Rs.39,000/-. This is well within the limits of advance amount available with the respondents. The default,if any, could well be adjusted in the advance amount. Therefore, it is reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no default in this case.
10. Perusal of records shows that there are materials to show that the petitioner attempted to pay rents through money order from November 2007 and then filed petition to deposit rent in the court and has been depositing the rent in the Court. However, there is no material https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 14/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 produced to show that the petitioner paid rents from March 2007 to October 2007. When the tenant says that he paid rent from March 2007 to October 2007 to the landlady, it is for the tenant to prove the factum of payment of rent. The tenant cannot simply say that he paid the rent, but the landlady did not issue receipt. If the landlady did not issue receipt, the tenant may wait for one or two months for getting the receipts and not for six or seven months. If the tenant is not able to produce acceptable evidence to show the payment of rent, it has to be concluded that the tenant has not proved the payment of rent. In the case before hand, the petitioner/ tenant has not proved through acceptable evidence that he paid rent to the respondent/landlady from March 2007 to October 2007. Even after filing of RCOP, the tenant has not taken any steps to deposit the disputed payment of rent from March 2007 to October 2007 in the Court.Therefore, this part of default has to be considered only as wilful default.
11. Much was said about the learned Rent Controller not considering the money orders sent and rent deposited in a petition filed under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 15/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 Control Act and the denial of permission to lead oral evidence in proof of money orders sent to the respondent and deposit of rent in the Court. It is seen that the petitioner produced copy of the order passed in RCOP No.1046 of 2008 during the enquiry before the learned Rent Controller. Money order forms and returned slips have not been produced in RCOP No.962 of 2008 for the reason that those documents were produced in RCOP No.1046 of 2008. These documents have been marked as Ex.R13 in the appeal. The learned appellate Judge refused permission to examine the petitioner to prove Ex.R13 documents. The procedure adopted by the learned appellate Judge while allowing the petition to receive the document and denying the permission to examine the petitioner is not correct. However, the non-examination of the petitioner, in the ultimate analysis of the case, would no way advance the case of the petitioner. The reason is, Ex.R13 receipts relate do not to the entire default period mentioned in the petition. It relates only from November 2007. Money order was sent only from November 2007 and subsequently, deposited in RCOP No.1046 of 2008. There is no evidence produced to show the payment of rent from March 2007 to October 2007. Thus, it is clear that the respondents established the case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 16/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 that the petitioner has not paid the rent wilfully from March 2007 to October 2007.
12. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- available with the respondent. Landlord has to keep only one month's rent as advance and if there is any excess advance amount available, the excess amount has to be returned to the tenant. When the advance amount available with the landlady is more than the arrears amount, the landlady has to adjust the excess amount towards rent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgments aforesaid in support of this proposition. No doubt that the aforesaid judgments show that the landlady is not entitled to keep more than one month's rent as advance and she has to refund the balance amount to the tenant, unless the tenant exercises the option to adjust the rent.
13. Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act reads that the landlord not to claim or receive anything in excess of fair rent or agreed rent. Section 7 of Tamil Nadu Buildings https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 (Lease and Rent) Control Act reads as follows:-
“(1) Where the Controller has fixed [or refixed] the fair rent of a building-
(a) the landlord shall not claim, receive or stipulate for the payment of any premium or other like sum in addition to such fair rent, or save as provided in section 5 or section 6, anything in excess of such fair rent:
Provided that the landlord may receive or stipulate for the payment of an amount not exceeding one month's rent, by way of advance;
(b) save as provided in clause (a), any premium or other like sum or any rent paid in addition to, or in excess of, such fair rent, whether before or after the date of the commencement of this Act, in consideration of the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy of the building after the date of such commencement, shall be refunded by the landlord to the person by whom it was paid or at the option of such person, shall be otherwise adjusted by the landlord. “ This Section makes it clear that if the landlord receives more than one month's rent as advance, he should refund it to the tenant or at the option of the tenant should adjust the rent. Whether the adjustment is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 18/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 automatic without exercise of option by the tenant is a moot question.
There are divergent views in this regard. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner show that even in the absence of any option exercised by the tenant, the landlord is bound to adjust the advance amount towards rent. However, it is seen from the judgment reported in AIR 1988 SC 1821 in the case of Nand lal Agarwal ..vs.. Ganesh Prasad Sah, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless the tenant has called upon the landlady to adjust the excess amount towards rent, he cannot escape from the consequences of wilful default. In CRP. (NPD) No.1198 of 2017 (M.K.Swaminathan ..vs.. V.Thangam ) it was held that in the absence of any request by the tenant to adjust the rent from advance, it is not open to the tenant to contend that he has not committed wilful default and the landlord ought to have adjusted the rent from the advance amount. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
“14. ........ As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that our High Court consistently held that in the absence of any request by the tenant to adjust the rent from advance, it is not open to the tenant to contend that he has not committed wilful default and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 19/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 the landlord ought to have adjusted the rent from the advance amount. In the judgment reported in 1994(2) MLJ 264, in the case of S.Sahabudeen represented by is power of attorney, S.Mohameed Mansoor vs. Muniammal, the learned Judge after referring to the Honourable Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1988 S.C.1821, in the case of Nand Lal vs. Ganesh Prasad, held that unless the tenant has called upon the landlord to adjust the excess payments toward arrears of rent, he cannot escape the consequences of wilful default in the payment of rent. The learned Judge also relied on the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1950(2) MLJ 579, in Navaneethammal, In re., case to arrive at the conclusion.
15.In the judgment reported in 1999(2) MLJ 68, in the case of K.Nanjappan vs. V.K.Janaki, the learned Judge discussed the case law on this aspect and held that unless the tenant called upon the landlord to adjust the advance against the arrears, he cannot escape the consequences of wilful default.
Further in this case, the conduct of the tenant should also prove that the default is nothing but wilful. As stated supra, without sending pay order along with Ex.R5, the tenant has claimed that rent for 3 months https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 20/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 representing Avani, Puratasi to Ayppasi 2001 was paid. Further, even after the relationship was strained , he claimed to have paid the rent in person without getting receipt. These conduct on the part of the tenant would lead only to the conclusion that he has committed wilful default, even though the landlord had the advance with him.
Therefore, the finding of the Lower Appellate Court that the landlord ought to have adjusted the amount from the advance and therefore, there is no wilful default in the payment of rent cannot be accepted. ...........................”
14. In the case before hand, the case of the petitioner is that he paid the rent for the months of March 2007 to October 2007. It is not his case that there was arrears during this period and he requested the landlady to adjust the advance amount towards arrears of rent. There is no option exercised by the tenant to adjust the advance amount towards disputed arrears of rent. Therefore, the tenant cannot escape from the consequences of wilful default. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, are not helpful to the case of the petitioner. It was already held that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 21/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 the petitioner has not paid rent from March 2007 to October 2007, which is nothing but wilful and wanton. Thus, it is clearly established that the petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rents from March 2007 to October 2007 and therefore, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction and it was rightly confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.
15. Accordingly, the order of learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCA No.699 of 2012 passed on 03.10.2018 is confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
14.09.2021
mra (1/2)
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
To,
1. VIII Judge, VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. XVI Judge, XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 22/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
After pronouncing order, learned counsel for the petitioner prays six months time for the petitioner to vacate the premises. Therefore, the petitioner is given six months time to vacate the premises.
Mra 14.09.2021
(2/2)
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
To,
1. VIII Judge, VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. XVI Judge, XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 23/24 C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
mra Pre-delivery order in C.R.P.(NPD) No.70 of 2019 and C.M.P.Nos.610 and 5197 of 2019 14.09.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 24/24