V. K. KUMARESAN Vs. P. JAYASEELAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already vacated the premises and the vacant possession has been handed over to the land lord. The said submission has been affirmed by the learned counsel for the respondent, stating that the possession has been taken with the help of Police.

(2.) It is appropriate to recollect that this Court heard Tr.C.M.P.No.942 of 2019 in detail on several occasions and after conclusion of the argument on either side, posted it for pronouncing orders on 19.02.2020. On the said date, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, which forced this Court to mark "No Appearance" for the petitioner in the cause title of the order dated 19.02.2020. It does not mean that the petitioner was not at all heard.

(3.) Tr.CM.P.No.942 of 2019 was disposed of by this Court as early as on 19.02.2020, with a direction to the petitioner herein / tenant, who is an Advocate, to vacate the premises within two weeks. It is very unfortunate that the petitioner took one long year to comply with the said order. However, this Court is of the view that the approach adopted by the petitioner / Advocate / Tenant in a clandestine manner to defeat the orders of this Court, is clear abuse of process of the Court. Under the pretext that a Review Application has been filed (may be true), this matter (Miscellaneous Petition) was dragged on by the petitioner to deceive the Court and the landlord, as the petitioner / tenant has not furnished either the SR number of the Review Application or the date on which the said Review Application was purported to have been filed to review the order in Tr.CMR, till the date of signing this order.