Oncocare Healthworks And Molecular Engineering Private Limited v. Sachin Bhandari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP Nos. 611 and 615 of 2026 and CMP Nos.2779 and 3404 of 2026 M/s Oncocare Health works And Molecular Engineering Private Limited Rep. by its Director Mr.S.Shreedharan, Aashirwad Towers, 2nd Floor, Door No.2/182, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

..Petitioner(s) in both CRPs Vs Sachin Bhandari S/o. Late.S.H.Bhandari, No.401, DBA Bridge View Apartments, 29, Cathedral Garden Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.

..Respondent(s) in CRP No.611 of 2026 Sundeep Bhandari s/o late S.H.Bhandari, No.7, Tank Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru 5600042 Karnataka .. Respondent(s) in CRP No.615 of 2026 Prayer in CRP No.611 of 2016: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 19.1.2026 passed by the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai in MP.NO.2/2025 in RLTOP.No. 142/2025.

Prayer in CRP No.615 of 2016: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 19.1.2026 passed by the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai in MP.NO.4/2025 in RLTOP.No. 92/2025. For Petitioner(s):

Mr. B.Natarajan For Respondent(s):

Mr.K.P.Suresh Kumar COMMON ORDER These civil revision petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to receive certain documents which were not filed along with the counter to the main OP.

2. It is not disputed that the respondent herein/ landlord in the revision petitions filed the main petitions seeking repossession of the property under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act,2017 (TNRRRL Act) from the petitioner herein /tenant. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of the demised premises and he failed to enter into the written agreement, as per the provisions of the Act.

3. The petitioner filed counter stating that in the absence of written agreement, as per the provisions of the Act, the main original petition filed by the respondent seeking repossession of the property was not maintainable. Interalia, he also raised other points.

4. Pending main original petitions, the petitioner/tenant filed the instant petitions seeking to receive certain documents, which were not filed along with the counter. The said petitions were dismissed by the Trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petitions

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner filed petitions to receive documents, which were not filed along with the counter and Trial Court ought not to have gone to the relevancy of the documents, even without receiving the same.

6. The respondent/landlord filed the original petitions seeking repossession of the property on the ground that the parties failed to enter into the agreement under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act,2017. The said main petitions were resisted by the petitioner herein on the ground that in the absence of written rental agreement, as per the provisions of the Act, the main petition seeking repossession of the property is not maintainable. The core issue arising for considerations in these original petitions is a legal issue and the same can be decided based on the arguments of the parties. The first document viz., order dated 11.11.2022 in Ar.OP No.14 of 2022, sought to be produced by the petitioner/tenant in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in RLTOP No142 of 2025, is an order passed by the High Court in an arbitral proceedings and the same need not be

marked and it can be pressed into service before the Rent Court, even without marking. The document No.1 in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in RLTOP No.92 of2025 was already filed by the respondent along with main RLTOP and hence, the petitioner need not produce it. As far as the documents No.2 to 6 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in RLTOP No.142 of 2025 and the documents referred in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in RLTOP No.92 of 2025 are concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned Rent Court, the same are not at all relevant to the core issue involved in the main OPs. The documents, namely, police complaint, notice to Corporation, FIR direction, referred in both petitions, are all not relevant to the legal issues and hence, it need not be considered in the main OP. Further, there is no specific enabling provision in the Act for the parties to produce documents after filing of the pleadings. In such circumstances, I do not find any serious error in the impugned order passed by the Rent Court.

7. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 10-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MST

To The XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

MST CRP No. 611 of 2026 10-02-2026