LAWS(MAD)-2013-12-6

P.PERUMAL (DIED) Vs. V.ARUN PRASAD

Decided On December 04, 2013
P.Perumal (Died) Appellant
V/S
V.Arun Prasad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in both the revision petitions is one and the same, a common order is being passed to dispose off both the revision petitions.

(2.) The facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing of both the revision petitions are as follows:

(3.) Both the R.C.O.P.Nos.83/2004 and 84/2004 were tagged together and a common order was passed by the Rent Controller on 14.08.2007, dismissing both the petitions. Aggrieved by the common order dated 14.08.2007 made in R.C.O.P.Nos.83/2004 and 84/2004, the respondent/landlord filed R.C.A.No.13 of 2008 and R.C.A.No.14 of 2008. A common order was passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 02.07.2009, allowing both the appeals, ordering eviction of the revision petitioners from the respective demised premises occupied by them. Against the common order dated 02.07.2009, both the tenants filed the above revision petitions in C.R.P.Nos.1650/2010 and 1684/2010. Since a common order has been passed in the original petitions and also in the appeals, a common order is also being passed now to dispose of both the revision petitions. It is admitted by both the counsel appearing for both the parties that the facts are identical and therefore, whatever order that is to be passed in one revision petition will apply to the other revision petition also. For the purpose of convenience, I am referring to R.C.O.P.No.83/2004 which leads to the filing of C.R.P.No.1650/2010 before this Court.