S.Lalitha vs G.Kumar — 7/2023
Case under The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 Section 21(2)(a). Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 09th April 2026.
RLTA - Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenant Appeals
CNR: TNCG010064372023
Filing Number
4267/2023
Filing Date
09-08-2023
Registration No
7/2023
Registration Date
24-08-2023
Court
Principal District Court, Chengalpet
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S.Lalitha
Adv. Vijayakumar K
Respondent(s)
G.Kumar
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Disposed
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
Judgement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 25-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 30-01-2026 | Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: S.Lalitha v. G.Kumar (RLTA No.7/2023) The Principal District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by landlady S.Lalitha against the tenant G.Kumar. The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the eviction petition, finding that Lalitha suppressed material facts—specifically that the premises belonged to the Ekambareswarar Temple, not to her. Although the respondent initially defaulted on rent from March 2020 onwards, the court found his February 2020 vacation was justified due to temple authorities' directive against alcohol business operations on temple property. The court rejected Lalitha's claim for double rent compensation, holding that her conduct in illegally subletting temple premises could not be justified in law, and found the balance of convenience favored the tenant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: S.Lalitha v. G.Kumar (RLTA No.7/2023) The Principal District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by landlady S.Lalitha against the tenant G.Kumar. The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the eviction petition, finding that Lalitha suppressed material facts—specifically that the premises belonged to the Ekambareswarar Temple, not to her. Although the respondent initially defaulted on rent from March 2020 onwards, the court found his February 2020 vacation was justified due to temple authorities' directive against alcohol business operations on temple property. The court rejected Lalitha's claim for double rent compensation, holding that her conduct in illegally subletting temple premises could not be justified in law, and found the balance of convenience favored the tenant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts