✦ Madras High Court

N.Kumar v. K.J.Mohammed Ibrahim2. K.J.Yasin Mohideen3. K.J.Habeep Rahman All are

N SATHISHKUMAR

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Inview of the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed as settled out of court

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. Inview of the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed as settled out of court. No costs. The connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.11.03.2019Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes /…

Judgment

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.03.2019CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMARCRP NPD NO.2306 and 2307 of 2009 andM.P.No.1+1 of 2009N.Kumar... PetitionerVs.

1.

K.J.Mohammed Ibrahim2. K.J.Yasin Mohideen3. K.J.Habeep Rahman All are represented by their Power Agent J.M.Shiek Abdul Kather... RespondentsPrayer in CRP NPD No.2307 of 2009: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the decree and judgment dated 04.09.2008 in RCA No.5 of 2008 by the Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mannargudi, confirming the decree and judgment dated 06.07.2009 passed in RCOP No.8 of 2005 by the District Munsif, Rent Control Court, Mannargudi. http://www.judis.nic.in 2Prayer in CRP NPD No.2307 of 2009: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the decree and judgment dated 05.09.2008 in RCA No.7 of 2008 by the Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mannargudi, confirming the decree and judgment dated 06.07.2009 passed in RCOP No.2 of 2005 by the District Munsif, Rent Control Court, Mannargudi. For Revision Petitioner: Mr.C.VivekanandFor Respondents : No appearanceCOMMON ORDERWhen the matter is listed today, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the dispute between the parties has been settled out of court. He has also made an endorsement to that effect.

Operative part

2.

Inview of the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed as settled out of court. No costs. The connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.11.03.2019Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes / Nospeaking/non speaking order mst http://www.judis.nic.in 3To1. The Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Mannargudi,2. The District Munsif, Rent Control Court, Mannargudi.N.SATHISHKUMAR, J., http://www.judis.nic.in 4CRP NPD No.2306 and 2307 of 2009M.P.No.1 + 1 of 200911.03.2019

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Inview of the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed as settled out of court

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 — s. 25.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments