A KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. P ARJUNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant in the rent control proceeding has come forward to file the above civil revision petition as against the fair and decretal order dated 27.3.2000 made in M.P.No.585 of 1999 in R.C.A.No.588 of 1999 by the Court of VIII Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) TODAY, when the above matter is taken up for consideration, in the presence of the learned counsel for both in consideration of the pleadings of parties and having regard to the materials placed on record, what comes to be known is that the main R.C.O.P. had been filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant and the same had been heard and decided ultimately in favour of the landlord/petitioner thereby ordering the eviction of the tenant, and in turn, it is the tenant who had preferred R.C.A.No.588 of 99 testifying the validity of the order passed by the Rent Controller and while filing the above R.C.A.., the tenant had also filed the petition in M.P.No.585 of 1999 for an order of stay of operation of the fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller in the R.C.O.P. Since this petition got dismissed by the appellate authority, the tenant has come forward to institute the above civil revision petition.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, C.M.P.Nos.7980 and 8622 of 2000 are closed.