YASHODA RAJU Vs. A KUSELAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is posted for admission and I heard the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The tenant is the revision petitioner, who has filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 270 of 2001 in R.C.O.P. No. 44 of 2000 seeking permission to file additional counter, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority, hence this revision petition.

(3.) On 07-06-2000, the respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P. No. 44 of 2000 before the learned Rent Controller, Ootacamund for eviction against the petitioner herein under Section 10(2) (1) and 14 (l)(b) of the Rent Control A.C. The petitioner herein has filed his counter on 28-09-2000 through his then counsel. In para-2 of the counter, the petitioner has admitted that the respondent herein is the landlord. The petitioner also filed suit O. S. No. 74 of 2000 before the District Munsif, Ootacamund to restrain the respondent herein from dispossessing her without due process of law. In the said suit, she has also filed I. A. No. 163 of 2000. In both the suit and interim application, the petitioner herein has mentioned the respondent as her landlord. Not content with, the petitioner has also referred in the R. C. O. P. No. 54 of 2000 filed by her against the respondent herein as landlord. An advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Court below in M. P. No. 42 of 2000 in R. C. O. P. No. 44 of 2000 wherein the petitioner has filed counter on 27-09-2001 admitting the fact that the respondent is the landlord.