M.E.Muthiah v. N. Jothiraman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI AND CMP NO. 2646 OF 2026 M.E.Muthiah S/o. M. Elumalai, New No.6, Old No.4, Ganesh Nagar, 4th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088.

..Petitioner(s) Vs N. Jothiraman S/o. M. Natarajan, No.246, M.I.G. Second Street, Mogappair Aeri Scheme, Chennai - 600 037.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow the above CRP by setting aside the Judgment dated 09.01.2026 in RLTA No.6 of 2024 on the file of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu confirming the Fair order and decreetal order dated 15.11.2023 in RLTOP No.19 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.G.V.Sridharan For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Gopala Krishnan

ORDER

Challenging the judgment dated 09.01.2026 in RLTA No.6 of 2024 on the file of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu upholding the fair and

decreetal order dated 15.11.2023 made in RLTOP No.19 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur, the petitioner / tenant has preferred this revision.

2. The respondent / landlord has filed an application before the trial court under Section 21(2(a), 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(g) of Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 for an order of eviction against the respondent and also for wilful default. On hearing both sides, the trial judge allowed the application under Section 21(2)(a) of Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, by directing the respondent / tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule premises to the petitioner /landlord within two months and dismissed the application on the ground of wilful default, own occupation under Section 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(g).

3. Aggrieved over the said order, the tenant has preferred an appeal in RLTA No.6 of 2024. On hearing both sides, the first appellate court also confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller holding that as per the New Act there was no new agreement entered between the parties. Therefore, the reason assigned for eviction is sustainable. Accordingly, the findings was confirmed. Aggrieved over the same, the tenant has preferred this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the trial court has passed an order of eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act against the revision petitioner which is beyond the scope of the application filed by the respondent herein under the above act. He further submits that the order of the appellate court is against law. He has not given any specific reason with regard to the eviction sought by the respondent on the ground owner's occupation merely because there was no agreement entered between the petitioner and respondent. More or less, the petitioner is not in arrears of rent till date. He further submit that both the Courts below erred in not appreciated the documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of trial before the trial court.

The both courts erred in ordering eviction simply there was no agreement between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent had already received the amount to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs from the petitioner, when the petitioner demanded the same, instead of repaying the same, the respondent cleverly filed the RLTOP before the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation, the same is against law. He further submits that the trial court has not given any opportunity to the revision petitioner to put forth his defense by way of his evidence and marking of documents through his cross examination, in this case the same has not been done, on the aforesaid ground the order of the eviction passed by the trial court has to be set aside and the appeal filed in RLTA No.6 of 2024 allowed with cost.

5. While admitting the revision petition on 16.03.2026, this Court has directed the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as part of the arrears of rent. After the landlord / respondent has claimed Rs.72,000/- as total arrears, however the court has directed only Rs.40,000/- and the same was complied by the revision petitioner.

6. When the matter was taken up, both the parties appeared along with their respective counsels. On considering the defence raised by the revision petitioner, the said learned counsel argues that the court below failed to take note of the fact that as on date, he has not committed any default in payment of rent and he is ready to pay the new rent suggested by the respondent.

7. On the other hand, the respondent expressed that the petitioner / tenant was dragging on the initial proceedings and he prayed to dismiss the revision.

8. Considering both the submissions and perusal of the records as per the New Act there was no new agreement was entered between the parties. Though the landlord / respondent has issued the notice but the tenant has not expressed his consent to get into the new agreement. Therefore, the trial court has rightly granted the eviction order which requires no interference. The revision has no merits and liable to be dismissed.

9. The revision petitioner / tenant is directed to vacate the premises within three months and for that period he is also directed to pay the admitted rent of Rs.12,000/- per month along with balance arrears of rent.

10. It is to be noted that pending revision, the landlord / respondent initiated the execution proceedings when the ameen went to the premise the revision petitioner, being running a private investigation agency threatened the landlord as well as ameen also brought to the knowledge of this court. Therefore, now this court granted three months time to vacate the premise and if he has not vacated immediately, the landlord is entitled to take possession of the property through the ameen. If any complaint is lodged by the revision petitioner before any of the police, the police also in-turn directed to investigate whether this revision petitioner is having valid license to run the private investigating agency as per the manner known to law.

11. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 04-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MTL

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

MTL To

1. The Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur.

2. The Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. AND CMP NO. 2646 OF 2026 04-06-2026