C S Mohamed Ali And 1 Other vs M/s Tirupur Sri Annapoorna Advocate - Prasanna S — 2/2024
Case under Leaseandrentcontrolact Section 21. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 16th June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNTI070000762024
Next Hearing
16th June 2026
e-Filing Number
08-03-2024
Filing Number
88/2024
Filing Date
14-03-2024
Registration No
2/2024
Registration Date
05-04-2024
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruppur
Judge
6-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
C S Mohamed Ali And 1 Other
Adv. Balaji K S
Mohammed Afzal
Respondent(s)
M/s Tirupur Sri Annapoorna Advocate - Prasanna S
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Principal District Munsif
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this Rent Control Act petition (RLDO 2/2024) heard by the Principal District Court, Tiruppur on January 27, 2026, the witness (petitioner seeking eviction) was cross-examined regarding alleged unpaid rent of Rs. 32,44,800. The court found significant inconsistencies in the petitioner's testimony, particularly regarding when rent payments ceased (claiming 2002 in testimony but 2015 in the petition) and contradictions about rent actually being received. The court rejected the petitioner's contentions, noting lack of supporting documentation, inconsistent statements, and the absence of clean hands in approaching the court, ultimately finding the petition unsuitable for relief and ruling that it should be dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this Rent Control Act petition (RLDO 2/2024) heard by the Principal District Court, Tiruppur on January 27, 2026, the witness (petitioner seeking eviction) was cross-examined regarding alleged unpaid rent of Rs. 32,44,800. The court found significant inconsistencies in the petitioner's testimony, particularly regarding when rent payments ceased (claiming 2002 in testimony but 2015 in the petition) and contradictions about rent actually being received. The court rejected the petitioner's contentions, noting lack of supporting documentation, inconsistent statements, and the absence of clean hands in approaching the court, ultimately finding the petition unsuitable for relief and ruling that it should be dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts