← Library
Madras High CourtCRP(MD)/632/2026disposed of

Nagaraj v. Subramanian

2026-03-11Honourable Mr Justice V. Lakshminarayanan12 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and CMP(MD) No.2942 of 2026 Nagaraj ... Petitioner vs.

Subramanian ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 25 of the TN Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 23.09.2025 passed in RCA No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Subordinate Court, Devakottai confirming the Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.02.2020 passed in RCOP No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Controller cum District Munsif Court, Devakottai.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Subordinate Judge, Devakottai in RCA.No.2 of 2020 dated 23.09.2025, in confirming the 1/12

order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Devakottai in RCOP.No.1 of 2017, dated 05.02.2020. 2.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant.

3.RCOP.No.1 of 2017 was launched by the landlord invoking the provisions of Section 10(2)(i) of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960. According to the landlord, the demised premises belong to the family of one Swaminathan Chettiar. The legal representatives of the said Swaminathan Chettiar were in possession and enjoyment of the same, by leasing it out and recovering rents from the tenants.

4.One Meenatchi Sundaram Chettiar was the predecessor in title of the present landlord. He passed away in 2005. Thereafter, his wife, Saraswathi Achi was collecting rents. From 01.04.2009, the present landlord started collecting rents from the tenant. The tenancy was oral. It was agreed that the tenant would pay a monthly rent of Rs.275/-. Pleading that the tenant had not paid rents from July 2015, he invoked the provision for eviction and filed RCOP.No.1 of 2017. 2/12

5.Summon was served on the tenant. He entered appearance through a counsel. He filed a detailed counter denying the title of the landlord. According to him, the property is a Poramboke land, on which, his grandfather had encroached and constructed the building. As there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he urged that the RCOP is absolutely untenable. 6.On the basis of these pleadings, the parties entered the witness box. On the side of the landlord, he entered the witness box as P.W1. He marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On the side of the tenant, the tenant examined himself as R.W1 and one Sinthamani was examined as R.W2. Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 were marked by the tenant. 7.Relying upon Ex.P12 and Ex.P16, the Rent Controller was convinced that a relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. As the tenant was not in a position to give a proper explanation for the period of default, the learned Judge concluded that the default not only existed but was willful. Hence, he allowed the petition.

3/12

8.Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred RCA.No.2 of 2020. On a re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority came to a conclusion that the plea set up by the tenant was not tenable and consequently, confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the said concurrent orders, the present Civil Revision Petition.

9.I heard Mr.C.Jeya Prakash in support of the Revision. 10.Mr.C.Jeya Prakash urges that, he had examined RW.2 to substantiate his plea that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the eviction petition. In addition, he pointed out that the signature of the tenant is not found under Ex.P17 to Ex.P20 and the same is an act of forgery. Hence, he pleaded that the Revision be admitted and an order of interim stay of eviction be ordered.

11.Mr.C.Jeya Prakash faces two hurdles. One, on the scope of the Revision itself and the second, on the merits of the case. 4/12

12.It has been settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78 that while the power of Revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is wider than the scope of Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction must not re-appreciate the evidence, unless and until, the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is ex facie perverse or illegal. The request of Mr.C.Jeya Prakash that I re-appreciate the evidence cannot be entertained in the light of the categorical declaration of law by the Supreme Court.

13.Considering the plea that has been raised by Mr.C.Jeya Prakash, I carefully went through the records available before this Court. The tenant had not taken any effort to get the signature in Ex.P17 to Ex.P20 to be examined by an expert in order to prove that the signature found therein is not his signature. The proceeding before the Rent Controller is a summary proceeding, but this does not bar a tenant, who is confronted with a receipt said to have been issued for tenancy, to take out an appropriate application before the Court to 5/12

disprove the same. Unfortunately, the tenant had not taken any such steps.

14.Apart from this, a petition for eviction under the Rent Control Act or even a suit for ejectment before the regular civil Court is not concerned with the issue of title. An issue of title is alien to an eviction proceeding. All that the Court is concerned with is, whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant and if it so exists, then, whether the act of the tenant attracts any one of the mischiefs, which has been prohibited under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960.

15.The allegation of the landlord is that rents had not been paid. The defense raised by the tenant, as already pointed out above, is one of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant. In addition, it was always open to the tenant to demonstrate before the Court that de hors this plea, he is not liable to be evicted by virtue of the act of default not being wilful. On that aspect too, the tenant has failed to demonstrate before the Court. The examination of RW.2 does not improve the case of the tenant.

6/12

16.As per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, no tenant of an immovable property, or any person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, is permitted to deny the title of the landlord at the beginning of the tenancy. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act merely ingrains into itself the principle of estoppel. It would certainly be applicable to a Rent Controller. The tenant, having come into possession of the property pursuant to the relationship that existed between the predecessors in title of the landlord and the predecessors in title of the tenant, falls within the scope of persons claiming through such tenant and therefore, is estopped from denying the title of the landlord at the inception of the tenancy.

17.A perusal of the judgements of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority point out that, they have applied the correct position of law to the facts placed before them. I do not find any perversity or illegality in their appreciation of evidence. Consequently, I do not find any necessity to entertain the Revisions. 18.At this stage, Mr.C.Jeya Prakash reported that the tenant has been in occupation of the property for several decades and in 7/12

case, he is dispossessed from the property, he would be put to irreparable loss and prejudice. I was inclined to grant time on condition, if Mr.C.Jeya Prakash files an affidavit of undertaking of the Civil Revision Petitioner that he would vacate and hand over the possession of the property within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19.Mr.C.Jaya Prakash has filed an affidavit, which is scanned and extracted hereunder:- 8/12

20.The undertaking given in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit is recorded by this Court. The Civil Revision Petitioner is granted time till 30.09.2026. During the said period, he shall pay the rents without default. He shall also clear the default, if any, pending proceedings. He shall not hand over the possession to any third party and shall 9/12

peacefully hand over the possession of the property to the landlord on or before 30.09.2026.

21.Mr.C.Jeya Prakash reports that the landlord has already filed an Execution Petition soon after the order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller. He states that an Execution Petition is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court at Devakottai. 22.As this Court has granted time to the tenant to vacate and hand over the possession on or before 30.09.2026, the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, is requested to adjourn the Execution Petition to 05.10.2026. If the tenant hands over the possession as per his undertaking given to this Court, the learned District Munsif, Devakottai, shall record the handing over of possession and close the Execution Petition. In case, the tenant does not hand over the possession, as per his undertaking, the learned Judge on 05.10.2026, is requested to pass an order of delivery in the Execution Petition and simultaneously grant orders to break open the locks and for police aid. The learned Judge need not wait for an application by the landlord seeking the said reliefs.

10/12

23.The Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed, with the aforesaid directions. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Index :Yes / No 11.03.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No mm To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.

2.The District Munsif, Devakottai.

11/12

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

mm 11.03.2026 12/12