Shakira Banu vs Murugaiah alies Chellappa — 3/2025

Case under The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 Section 21(2)(a). Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

IA Pending Next hearing 23-Jun-2026 this date has passed

RLTOP - Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenant Original Petition

CNR: TNTS110016542025

e-Filing Number

18-06-2025

Filing Number

70/2025

Filing Date

23-Jun-2025

Registration No

3/2025

Registration Date

29-Jul-2025

Court

District Munsif Court, Shengottah

Judge

1-District Munsif

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

The Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 Section 21(2)(a)
Ia/1/2025 Classification : 151 Petition Section Murugaiah alies Chellappa

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Shakira Banu

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

  2. 2.Syed meeran

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

  3. 3.Ameersha

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

  4. 4.Mohideen Fathima

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

  5. 5.Yasar Arabath

    Adv. R STEPHEN B A B L

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Murugaiah alies Chellappa

Case History

  1. 23-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  4. 09-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  5. 06-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  6. 01-Jun-2026

    IA Pending

    District Munsif

  7. 29-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  8. 24-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  9. 20-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  10. 17-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  11. 16-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: RLTOP No. 3/2025 Parties: Shakira Banu (Petitioner/PW1) vs. Murugaiah alias Chellappa (Respondent) Outcome: The court recorded the cross-examination of the petitioner (Shakira Banu) on 16.04.2026 under the Indian Evidence Act, 1873. The petitioner testified regarding property disputes, land documents, and a tea shop operated by the respondent on survey land 13/3. The court confirmed: land ownership details in documents; property boundaries; sale of 15 cents of 19 cents of land to one Kamala; the respondent's tea shop operation since 2010/2020; and the respondent's electrical connection. The court found no objection to appointing a court commissioner to investigate the matter further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  12. 16-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  13. 11-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  14. 07-Apr-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  15. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    District Munsif

  16. 23-Mar-2026

    Appearance

    District Munsif

  17. 18-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  18. 16-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  19. 10-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  20. 07-Mar-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  21. 26-Feb-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif

  22. 11-Feb-2026

    Enquiry

  23. 22-Jan-2026

    Enquiry

  24. 11-Dec-2025

    Enquiry

  25. 19-Nov-2025

    Enquiry

  26. 05-Nov-2025

    Counter

  27. 08-Oct-2025

    Counter

  28. 17-Sep-2025

    Counter

  29. 28-Aug-2025

    Counter

  30. 29-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 23-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: RLTOP No. 3/2025 Parties: Shakira Banu (Petitioner/PW1) vs. Murugaiah alias Chellappa (Respondent) Outcome: The court recorded the cross-examination of the petitioner (Shakira Banu) on 16.04.2026 under the Indian Evidence Act, 1873. The petitioner testified regarding property disputes, land documents, and a tea shop operated by the respondent on survey land 13/3. The court confirmed: land ownership details in documents; property boundaries; sale of 15 cents of 19 cents of land to one Kamala; the respondent's tea shop operation since 2010/2020; and the respondent's electrical connection. The court found no objection to appointing a court commissioner to investigate the matter further. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case