Allowed

M.N.Somasundaram v. M.S.Seetharaman

Madras HC8 Nov 2018CRP/3509/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court held that granting 30 adjournments for a simple rent recovery matter defeated the spirit of the State Litigation Policy. The Court directed the lower court to dispose of the pending petition within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal District Munsif, Alandur, to dispose of M.P.No.189 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.96 of 2016 within four weeks.

M.N.Somasundaram Vs M.S.Seetharaman — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.11.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)No.3509 of 2018
1. N.Somasundaram
2. N.Saroja
3. Uma Maheshwari ... Petitioners
Vs
M.S.Seetharaman ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to direct the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, to dispose of
M.P.No.189 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.96 of 2016.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
O R D E R
The revision petition on hand is filed for a direction to direct the learned
Principal District Munsif, Alandur to dispose of M.P.No.189 of 2017 in
R.C.O.P.No.96 of 2016.

¶7

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners made a submission that the revision petitioners are the petitioners in

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

R.C.O.P.No.96 of 2016. The Rent Control Original Petition was filed for eviction of

¶11

the tenant on the ground of wilful default and for owners' occupation. The miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.189 of 2017 was filed by the revision petitioners for recovery of arrears of rent due to the landlords.

¶12

3.The grievances of the revision petitioners are that the miscellaneous

¶13

petition was filed in the year 2017 and the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, has granted 30 adjournments without assigning any valid reasons and the respondent tenant is prolonging and protracting the matter for his personal gains and he is continuing in the premises even without paying the rent to the landlords.

¶14

4.At the first instance, this Court has to consider the fact that the revision

¶15

petitioners are the landlords admittedly. There is no dispute in respect of the title

¶16

and ownership, in respect of the property in question. The simple fact required for the purpose of considering the miscellaneous petition is that, whether the

¶17

tenant is paying the rent to the landlords or not. For deciding such a simple issue, if 30 adjournments are granted, the very spirit and object of the State Litigation Policy is defeated. Courts must be cautious while dealing with such simple petitions with limited issues. Unnecessary adjournments are to be averted

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

and the Courts cannot grant adjournments in a routine manner. If unnecessary adjournments are sought for, cost must be imposed and the Courts can never show any leniancy in respect of grant of adjournments without any valid reason. Adjournments can never be granted as a rule and adjournments are only an

¶21

exception.

¶22

5.This being the principles to be followed, this Court is of an opinion that 30 adjournments granted in respect of the miscellaneous petition filed by the revision petitioner for payment of arrears of rent is certainly unreasonable and therefore, this Court is inclined to consider the present revision petition.

¶23

6.Accordingly, the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, is directed to

¶24

dispose of the M.P.No.189 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.96 of 2016 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

7.With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No

Costs.

08.11.2018

mkn/ssr

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

¶31

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶32

mkn/ssr

¶33

Index : Yes Internet : Yes Speaking order

¶34

To The Principal District Munsif, Alandur. C.R.P.(PD)No.3509 of 2018

¶35

08.11.2018

¶36

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.N.Somasundaram v. M.S.Seetharaman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.N.Somasundaram v. M.S.Seetharaman

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

S.Saraswathi Vs the Commissioner

K.P.Patchaiyappan Vs the Tashildar

R.Gurunathan, Vs the Principal Secretary to

Mrs. Noorjehan Subhani Vs Mohammed Usman

Samba Vaidyanathan Vs Raja Rama Varma

Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Pvt.Ltd Vs M/S.Fair Deal Supplies Ltd.