The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution as the petitioner's counsel was absent. Although the counsel on record reported the petitioner's death, the absence precluded the disposal of the matter. The connected miscellaneous petition was accordingly closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP(MD)No.565 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRP(MD)No.565 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3035 of 2021
R.L.Raju ... Petitioner
versus
A.Jeyamani
... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, against the order dated 30.01.2020 made in R.C.A.No.39 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Madurai.
For Petitioner : No appearance
ORDER
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 19.10.2022, the learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioner was not present,
1/3
CRP(MD)No.565 of 2021
however, it was reported by the learned counsel representing the counsel on record that the petitioner died and the possession was taken over and therefore, nothing survives in this petition. Since the learned counsel on record appearing for the petitioner was not present, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”.
27.10.2022
ogy
To
2/3
CRP(MD)No.565 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
CRP(MD)No.565 of 2021
27.10.2022
3/3
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.L. Raju
A. Jeyamani
B. Pugaendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
