M.Vadivelu v. M.Palanisamy
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court quashed an interim order rejecting a Rent Control application solely because it was unnumbered, holding that the Registry lacked power to reject it before the file pickup procedure.
What did the court decide?
The interim order dated 14.11.2018 rejecting the unnumbered application was set aside. The Rent Controller was directed to number the application within one week and pass orders after due enquiry.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.12.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
C.R.P(PD) No.4082 of 2018
and
CMP.No.22569 of 2018
M.Vadivelu ..Petitioner
Vs
1.M.Palanisamy
2.Gowri Palanisamy
3.Dharani
4.D.Rangaraj ..Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 14.11.2018 in unnumbered E.A.SR10154/2018 in E.P.R.No.21 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller-Cum-Principal District Munsiff, Erode.
For Petitioner :Mr.S.Ramesh
ORDER
The prayer sought for in the present petition is to set aside the
order dated 14.11.2018 in unnumbered E.A.SR10154/2018 in E.P.R.No.21 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller-Cum-
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the co-owner can be a necessary party in Rent Control proceedings before the application is duly numbered and taken on file.
Whether Registry has power to reject Rent Control application without numbering the same.
Whether an interim order rejecting a petition without numbering must be quashed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M. Vadivelu
- respondent
M.Palanisamy
- respondent
Gowri Palanisamy
- respondent
Dharani
- respondent
D. Rangaraj
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court