Originally, when the matter was listed on 01.12.2016, there was no representation for the petitioner. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal. Again, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 07.12.2016, it was represented by the petitioner that the petitioner / tenant has already vacated the premises. However, for getting written instructions, he sought time. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned and when it was listed on 14.12.2016, at his request, once again, it was adjourned. While so, when the matter was listed on 09.01.2017, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was absent and hence, once again, the matter was directed to be posted under the caption for dismissal. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 19.01.2017, at the request of the petitioner, it was adjourned. Eventually, when the matter is taken up for hearing, once again, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
2. In the light of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To (1)The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Tiruchirapalli.
(2)The Rent Controller (Second Additional District Munsif) Tiruchirapalli.
(3)The Record Keeper, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.