Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1909 (MAD)

Abdul Samad v. Thota Rajashree

2013-06-05

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order made in M.P.No.244 of 2013 in R.C.A.No.152 of 2013 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras (Rent Control Appellate Authority) whereby the court below while granting interim stay directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.79,56,795/- to the credit of R.C.A. on or before 17.04.2013. 2. Mr.P.B.Balaji, learned counsel whose name printed in the cause list as Caveator represents that he has given change of vakalat and Mr.T.Velumani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that he has filed vakalat on behalf of the respondent and his name may be printed for the respondent. 3. When the matter was listed for admission before this Court on 03.06.2013, after hearing the petitioner's counsel this court expressed its view that there is no merit in the civil revision petition since the order under challenge shows that the petitioners have accepted to deposit the amount and only they sought for three weeks time and that the Court below also granted sufficient time for making such deposit. Hence, the petitioner's counsel sought time to get instruction from the petitioners and to report as to whether the petitioners could vacate the premises and hand over possession of the same to the respondent landlady. Accordingly, today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners filed an affidavit of the second petitioner indicating that the same is filed on behalf of the first petitioner also. In the said affidavit, the petitioners have undertaken to vacate the premises within a period of three months and hand over vacant possession of the property. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted hereunder: "4. I submit that the petitioners unconditionally undertake to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the tenancy portion within three months as per the decision of this Honourable Court." 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners specifically submitted that the affidavit filed by the second petitioner is also on behalf of the first petitioner and as such, the undertaking given in the affidavit may be treated as undertaking given by both the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that instead of granting three months, two months time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate and hand over possession to the respondent landlady. 6. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that instead of granting three months, two months time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate and hand over possession to the respondent landlady. 6. Considering the above stated developments and the affidavit filed by the petitioners before this Court, the above civil revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits and the petitioners are directed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition mentioned property to the respondent landlady within a period of two months from today. The respondent is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for recovery of arrears of rent from the petitioners in the manner known to law. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.