RATHINAM AMMAL Vs. N M ABU MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

(2.) The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would submit that earlier there had been one round of litigation and the landlord met with his Waterloo. Even at that time, the tenants started depositing the rent in the Court and in such a case, absolutely there was no necessity at all for the landlord to file this present R.C.O.P., to evict the tenants. It is nothing but vendetta on the part of the landlord as against the tenants to get them evicted by hook or crook. Both the Courts below took note of the fact as though in lumpsum, the rents for the period between August 2001 and March 2002 were paid. As such, interference is necessary by this Court.

(3.) Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth on the side of the Revision Petitioners, the learned counsel for the landlord would advance his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: