High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 MAD CK 0220

Mathivanan vs Shanmugam @ S. Murugan and another

Madras High Court · Decided on 21 December 2011 · Citation: (2012) 1 LW 976

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Venkataraman, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. (P.D.) No. 911 of 2011 and M.P. No. 1 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 174 words
1.

The present revision is filed against the order made in unnumbered application at the instance of the petitioner/tenant in RCOP No. 13 of 2007 initiated by the respondents/ landlords. In a suit for eviction filed by the respondents against the petitioner, the petitioner/tenant has filed an application u/s 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The learned Rent Controller (District Munsif, Krishnagiri) rejected the application on the ground that the tenant cannot exercise his option by filing an application u/s 11 of the Act. I am in entire agreement with the finding of the learned Rent Controller. Section 11 could be invoked only by the landlord and not by tenant. In view of the same, the present revision is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to invoke any other provision like Section 8(5) of the Act for deposit of rent if he chooses to do so. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.