MIYAN Vs. MARIYA ARULRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the sides. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus: The respondent filed RCOP for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in paying the rent and also for owners occupation. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on both the grounds, against which R.C.A.No.45 of 2012 was filed by the tenant. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that after the filing of R.C.A., I.A.No.330 of 2012 was filed seeking stay of the operation of the order of delivery, but the Lower Court simply adjourned that I.A., ordering notice and thereafter, it has not been taken up for hearing. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent /landlord would submit that automatically the stay could not be granted even by the appellate Court simply for the sake of asking for it by the appellant. There are huge arrears of rent and in such a case, the revision petitioner cannot, as a matter of right demand the stay from the appellate Authority.

(3.) THE Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.