K.M. Murugesan vs A. Subramaniam (died) Advocate - Dharmaraj S — 12/2014
Case under Rentrecoveryact Section u/s9-3. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 21st April 2026.
RCOP - Rent Control Original Peition
CNR: TNTI070002912014
Next Hearing
21st April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Date
04-09-2014
Registration No
12/2014
Registration Date
05-09-2014
Court
District Munsif Court, Tiruppur
Judge
6-Principal District Munsif
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.M. Murugesan
Adv. Muthushanmugasundaram V
Respondent(s)
A. Subramaniam (died) Advocate - Dharmaraj S
Kalaiselvi
Adv. Dharmaraj S
Vijayalakshmi
Adv. Dharmaraj S
Shakthi Karthika
Adv. Dharmaraj S
Senthil Arumugam
Adv. Dharmaraj S
Santhosh
Adv. Dharmaraj S
Neelamani
Adv. Dharmaraj S
Hearing History
Judge: 6-Principal District Munsif
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 01-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 26-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 17-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case: RCOP No.12/2014, Principal District Civil Court, Tiruppur Date: March 9, 2026 Outcome: The witness (Executive Engineer of PWD, Muthusarvanan) was examined and cross-examined regarding a property rental valuation assessment. The witness affirmed his valuation of ₹4,400 per sq.ft. as of July 1, 2024, based on PWD Chief Engineer guidelines, and testified that he did not conduct structural integrity assessment of the 30-year-old building, did not verify property ownership rights, and relied on court-appointed commissioner's findings for building age determination. The court accepted the witness testimony and examination was concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case: RCOP No.12/2014, Principal District Civil Court, Tiruppur Date: March 9, 2026 Outcome: The witness (Executive Engineer of PWD, Muthusarvanan) was examined and cross-examined regarding a property rental valuation assessment. The witness affirmed his valuation of ₹4,400 per sq.ft. as of July 1, 2024, based on PWD Chief Engineer guidelines, and testified that he did not conduct structural integrity assessment of the 30-year-old building, did not verify property ownership rights, and relied on court-appointed commissioner's findings for building age determination. The court accepted the witness testimony and examination was concluded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts