Tenants sought to set aside concurrent eviction orders but offered to vacate, requesting time as a medical shop was run in the premises. The High Court granted six months to vacate from the date of order, warning of prosecution for breach of undertaking, and disposed of the revision without costs.
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.
C.R.P[NPD].No.4588 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25658 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.[NPD]No.4588 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25658 of 2024
J.M.Irudayaraj (Deceased)
9.I.Merry Rani .. Petitioners
Vs.
V.S.UmaShankar .. Respondent
1/6
C.R.P[NPD].No.4588 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25658 of 2024
Prayer:
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960), against the judgment dated 09.01.2024 passed in R.C.A.No.21 of 2023 on the file of VII Court of Small Causes at Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2022 in R.C.O.P.No.1296 of 2015 on the file of XIV Court of Small Causes at Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Balasubramaniam
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sridhar
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 09.01.2024 passed in R.C.A.No.21 of 2023 on the file of VII Court of Small Causes at Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2022 in R.C.O.P.No.1296 of 2015 on the file of XIV Court of Small Causes at Chennai.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the
2/6
C.R.P[NPD].No.4588 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25658 of 2024
petitioners are willing to evict the premises and seeks some time for the same. According to the petitioners, the medical shop is being run in the said premises and therefore, some reasonable time may be given to establish the business in any other place and affidavit also filed to that effect.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that one year time has been sought by the petitioners to vacate the premises. The R.C.O.P., has been filed in the year 2015 itself and therefore, seeking such a long time is unacceptable.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondent.
5.Considering the nature of business run by the petitioners and at the same time the execution proceeding is pending, this Court is inclined to grant six months time to vacate the premises. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to vacate the premises within a period of six months from today. In the event of failure to vacate the premises, the petitioners will be
3/6
C.R.P[NPD].No.4588 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25658 of 2024
prosecuted for the violation of undertaking given by them before this Court.
6.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.11.2024
rst
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
To:
The Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam.
4/6
C.R.P[NPD].No.4588 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25658 of 2024
5/6
C.R.P[NPD].No.4588 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25658 of 2024
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
rst
C.R.P.[NPD]No.4588 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.25658 of 2024
19.11.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether time should be granted to tenants running a medical shop to vacate the premises after eviction orders were confirmed on appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J.M.Irudayaraj (Deceased)
E.KanniMariyal
E.Jesuraj
E.John Vincent
E.MariySelvi
E.Bala Stella Mary
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
