Dismissed

Claster Rex v. Annline Nirmala

Madras HC23 Feb 2024CRP(MD)/283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside orders confirming execution proceedings. The Court declined to interfere with the facts, directing the parties to resolve the issue regarding the vacation of premises and return of advance before the executing court itself.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

Claster Rex Vs Annline Nirmala — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.283 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 23.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.283 of 2024 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No. 1306 of 2024

Claster Rex

...Petitioner

Vs.

Annline Nirmala ....Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in R.C.A.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, dated 21.09.2023, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ist Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil dated 23.03.2022 and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. R.J.Karthick

¶14

For Respondent : Mr. P.T.Ramesh Raja

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.R.P(MD)No.283 of 2024

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed in R.C.A.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, dated 21.09.2023, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ist Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil dated 23.03.2022 and allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶20

It is stated that, an execution petition in E.P.No.17 of 2022 was filed by the respondent herein and in that petition, the petitioner appears to have given an undertaking that he will vacate the premises at the time of returning the advance amount. But after that only this revision petition came to be filed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may

¶22

require a period of one year for vacate the premises, since he is running a Bakery. For which the respondent is not willing.

¶23

2/4

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

C.R.P(MD)No.283 of 2024

¶26

This Court is not inclined to go in the facts. Before the E.P. Court, an undertaking was filed by the petitioner herein with regard to the return of the advance amount and hand over the premises. So they can work out the issue before the E.P. Court itself. I find no reason to entertain this petition.

¶27

With this observation, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

¶28

23.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶29

pnn

¶30

¶31

The Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.

¶32

Record Keeper, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

3/4

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.R.P(MD)No.283 of 2024

¶36

G. ILANGOVAN, J.

¶37

pnn

¶38

C.R.P(MD)No.283 of 2024

¶39

23.02.2024

¶40

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Claster Rex v. Annline Nirmala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Claster Rex v. Annline Nirmala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anthony Benildus Vs John Bosco

K.Farook Abdullah Vs M.Syed Abudaheer

Renganathan Vs Devi

Cicily Vs Mariadhas

A.Ravichandran Vs Chrihsta Kumari

M/s.Jayalakshmi and Co. Rice Mill, Vs M.Periyasamy