K.Z.Jainappu Sameema v. M/S. Aparr Innoventures Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN CRP.No.4479 of 2025 and CMP.No.22827 of 2025

1. Mrs.K.Z.Jainappu Saeema

2. Mrs.Fazila Begum ... Petitioners / Petitioners / Respondents / Petitioners

Versus

M/s. Aparr Innoventures Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Directors:

1. Mrs.Ritu Arya,

2. Mr.Subash Arya, Having office at Sree Maura Krupa Towers, 4th Floor, No.23, New Door No.51, North Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

Both residing at No.F-102, Central Park East, Elcot Avenue, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119 ... Respondent / Respondent / Petitioner / Respondent Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in M.P.No.4 of 2025 in M.P.No.3 of 1/7

2024 in RLTOP.No.226 of 2024.

For Petitioners : Mr. K.Shahul Hameed

O R D E R

The Revision Petitioners / Applicants in R.L.T.O.P.No.226 of 2024 on the file of the learned XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, sought eviction of the respondent from the scheduled tenancy portion under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, as amended by XXIX of 2018. When the case pending for enquiry, the respondent filed an application in M.P.No.3 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.226 of 2024, seeking permission to cross-examine P.W.1 in the said proceedings. The revision petitioners / applicants filed their counter. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, the Court below, vide order dated 25.02.2025, allowed the application permitting the petitioner/ respondent to cross-examine P.W.1 in R.L.T.O.P. No.

226 of 2024, subject to the extent of denial of jural relationship and to the issue of tenancy as set up by the tenant, which the landlord disputes. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners / applicants filed a C.R.P.(PD)No.1499 of 2025 before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 09.04.

following grounds:- "6. The only argument that has been advanced is that he document under which the respondents who claims to be an tenant under one Global Academy had not been produced. However, a perusal of the paragraph 5 of the impugned order would show that these documents have been produced and the Court has considered the same. it is well open to the petitioners to cross examine the witness or these documents. it is needless to state that the petitioners can make application for receipt of the copy of the agreement. On such application being made, the same shall be provided to the revision petitioners.".

Subsequently, the revision petitioners / applicants filed an application in M.P.No.4 of 2025 in M.P.No.3 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.226 of 2024, seeking a review of the order dated 25.02.2025 passed in M.P.No.3 of 2024. The Court below, vide order date 07.08.2025, dismissed the review application on the ground that the order passed in M.P.No.3 of 2024 had already been challenged before the High Court and upheld. However, the petitioners, in the review petition, had conveniently suppressed this fact and approached the Court with unclean hands, which is clearly an abuse of process of law.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that as per the liberty granted by the Court vide order dated 09.04.2025, the revision petitioners filed a copy application in C.A.No.3906 3/7

of 2025 seeking a certified copy of the alleged agreement. In response, The Rent Court, through its final endorsement dated 23.04.2025, returned the application stating that no such document exists in the Court bundle or on record. The learned counsel relied on the above endorsement and the material facts which established that the order passed by the Rent Court on 25.02.2025 in MP.No.3 of 2024 was based on a non-existent document.

3. In light of the above contrary evidence, the revision petitioners filed a review petition before the Rent Court to bring attention to the non-existent documents and to seek a review of the order dated 25.02.2025, which was allegedly based on false premises. It is seen from the records that M.P.No. 4 of 2025 was filed against the review order dated 25.02.2025 passed in MP.No.3 of 2024, consequently dismissing MP.No.3 of 2024 passed by the Rent Court. According to the revision petitioner, there is no valid rental agreement exists between the parties. However, in the order passed in MP.No.3 of 2024 , this Court referred to certain documents allegedly produced by the respondent with Global Academy, stating that Global Academy is a landlord by virtue of a rental agreement dated 17.07.2013. Further, it is contended that even assuming, without admitting, that the rental 4/7

agreement dated 17.07.2013 exists, it was allegedly executed during rent control proceedings and holds no relevance to the present proceedings.

4. It is seen from the orders passed in M.P.No.3 of 2024 that the revision petition was challenged. However, the revision petitioner has not addressed the order passed by this Court in CRP.P.D.No.1499 of 2025 dated 09.04.2025.

5. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed in M.P.No.4 of 2025 in M.P.No.3 of 2024 in RLTOP.No.226 of 2024, dated 07.08.2025, on the file of the learned XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 19.09.2025 av 5/7

Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No To The learned XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai. M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

av 6/7

CRP.No.4479 of 2025 and CMP.No.22827 of 2025 19.09.2025 7/7