Allowed

Gobi Bai Kundandoss v. Syed Shafullah

Madras HC17 Jul 2014CRP/1226/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the High Court of Madras directed the lower court to summon a witness from CMWSSB and produce documents to verify rent deposit, finding the impugned order to be unjustified in view of the no-objection endorsement. The petition was accordingly allowed with directions to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to issue subpoena to Area Engineer, CMWSSB within one week and dispose of suit within two months after fixing witness examination date.

Gobi Bai Kundandoss Vs Syed Shafullah — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:17.07.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶6

CRP (PD) No.1226 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

Gobi Bai Kundandoss

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Syed Shafullah .. Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 28.02.2014 made in M.P.No.51 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.1090 of 2007, on the file of the XI Small Causes Judge, Chennai.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondent : Mr.G.V.Sridharan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The tenant, who is the petitioner in M.P.No.51 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.1090 of 2007 has come forward with this petition challenging the impugned order dated 28.02.2014 passed in M.P.No.51 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.1090 of 2007, on the file of the learned XI Small Causes Judge, Chennai.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the landlord, who is the respondent herein, filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.1090 of 2007 on the ground of willful default and owners occupation.

¶16

The tenant/revision petitioner herein filed his counter and contested the same

¶17

¶18

and to prove the fact that he has not committed any willful default on payment of rent, he filed an application to issue subpoena to the Corporation authority for depositing a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Corporation, which was allowed and documents were produced. Like wise, the tenant/revision petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Chennai Metro Water and Sewerage Board, Chennai. Hence, he filed an application to issue subpoena to the Area Engineer, Chennai Metro Water and Sewerage Board, Chennai, to give evidence and produce the document. He further submitted that even though the learned counsel appearing for the landlord made an endorsement that he has no objection, the trial Court has dismissed the application. Hence, the tenant/revision petitioner herein has come forward with this revision petition.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that now, R.C.O.P.No.1090 of 2007 was posted for arguments and with a view to drag on the proceedings, the revision petitioner herein has come forward with this revision petition. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this revision petition.

¶20

I have considered the submissions made by both sides.

¶21

The tenant/revision petitioner herein wants to examine the witnesses from Chennai Metro Water and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) and also for production of documents to prove that he deposited Rs.2,00,000/- on behalf of the landlord.

¶22

¶23

A perusal of order of the trial Court shows that the respondent has no objection to issue summons to the witnesses from Chennai Metro Water and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB). In such circumstances, to meet out the ends of justice and to prove that the tenant/revision petitioner herein has not committed any willful default, the examination of witnesses and production of documents are necessary. So, I am of the view that it is necessary to issue subpoena to the Area Engineer, CMWSSB, to give evidence and produce certain documents. Hence, the trial Court is directed to issue subpoena to the Area Engineer, CMWSSB, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to dispose of the suit within a period of two months after fixing the date of examination of the witnesses from CMWSSB.

¶24

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶25

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

17.07.2014

ogy

The XI Small Causes Judge, Chennai.

R.MALA,J.

ogy

CRP (PD) No.1226 of 2014

¶34

17.07.2014

Gobi Bai Kundandoss v. Syed Shafullah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobi Bai Kundandoss v. Syed Shafullah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sri Lakshmi Saraswati Vs Shiv Kumar Jindal

B.Mohan Vs S.Ajiba

Dr Sridevi Vs the Chancellor &Managing

M/S Mathi Enterprises Vs Mr.Diobyendu Choudhery

The Chairman Vs M/S Western Agencies Madras

K.Elumalai Vs G.Iyyammal