Disposed

Mrs.P.Vitto Bai v. C.Padmavathi Chandrasekaran

Madras HC5 Mar 2018CRP/488/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960. Upon filing an undertaking affidavit by the petitioners to vacate the premises and pay future rent, the revision was dismissed and the file returned to the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition disposed of; petitioners to vacate premises within eight months and pay future rent by the 5th day of every month.

Mrs.P.Vitto Bai Vs C.Padmavathi Chandrasekaran — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (NPD) No. 488 of 2018
and
CMP. No. 2547 of 2018
1. P. Vitto Bai
2. P. Sathyaraj .. Petitioners
Vs
C. Padmavathi Chandrasekaran .. Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (as amended), to set aside the order and decree passed by the Appellate Authority (IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) dated 21.11.2017 and made in RCA No. 625/2014 affirming the order and decree passed by the learned Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) dated 23.09.2014 in RCOP No. 1537/2012.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr. S. Sadasivan

¶9

for M/s. D. Nandagopal

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.C. Vigneswaran

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order and

¶15

decree passed by the Appellate Authority (IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) dated 21.11.2017 in RCA No. 625/2014 affirming the order and decree passed by the learned Rent Controller (XIV Judge, Court

¶16

of Small Causes, Chennai) dated 23.09.2014 in RCOP No. 1537/2012.

¶17

Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners filed an

¶18

Undertaking Affidavit dated 27.02.2018 stating that the petitioners will vacate the demised premises and hand over the vacant possession to the

¶19

respondent, within a period of eight months i.e. on or before 31.10.2018.

¶20

Recording the undertaking affidavit dated 27.02.2018 of the

¶21

petitioners, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of and the shall form part of the records. The petitioners are directed to pay the future rents

¶22

to the respondent on or before 5^th day of every calender month. It is

¶23

open to the respondent to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioners towards the rent, by filing appropriate application before the court below. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded

¶24

that at the time of vacating the premises, the advance amount will be

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

settled to the petitioners. In case of any default committed by the petitioners, the respondent is at liberty to proceed further, in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous

¶28

Petition is closed. No costs.

¶29

05.03.2018
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
avr
[Issue order copy on 26.04.2018]
To
1. The IX Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
2. The XIV Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Chennai

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶33

avr

¶34

CRP (NPD) No. 488 of 2018
and
CMP. No. 2547 of 2018
05.03.2018

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

Mrs.P.Vitto Bai v. C.Padmavathi Chandrasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.P.Vitto Bai v. C.Padmavathi Chandrasekaran

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

Lakshmi Vs Viswantathan

Jayanthi W/O Chelvadoari Vs Saravanan S/O S. Mani

Aiyulu Vs Sakunthala

Sanguvathi Vs Sankaran Narayanan

Y.Viswanathan Vs Y.Laxman

M.Marayee@Marayammal Vs K.Kamalathal Died