R.Vanaja v. V.J.Sriram

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR C.R.P(MD). No.3937 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD) No.20567 of 2025 R.Vanaja ... Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent Vs V.J.Sriram ... Respondent / Respondent/ Respondent PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the ex-order and fair order passed in R.T.A.No.2 of 2023, dated 26.06.2025 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Madurai, by confirming the order passed in R.L.T.O.P.No.90 of 2020, dated 28.07.2022 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madurai (Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town) and allow the Revision Petition with cost.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Juliet Latha For Respondent : Mr.R.Parthiban 1/4

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Madurai, in R.T.A.No.2 of 2023, dated 26.06.2025, confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller, Madurai (Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town), in R.L.T.O.P.No.90 of 2020, dated 28.07.2022.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent is the landlord of the petition premises and that there is no express tenancy agreement between the petitioner and the respondent so as to establish a tenancy as contemplated under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. In the absence of any express agreement, the respondent was constrained to file the application under the provisions of the said Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not dispute the arrears of rent, which amount to Rs.4,570/- per month, and would submit that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and that the same is pending. 2/4

4. It is evident from the records that the revision petitioner has not paid the rent from February 2016 till date. The monthly rent of Rs.4,570/- is also not in dispute. In view of the admitted arrears and the concurrent findings of the Court below, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference.

5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for want of merits. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

Speaking : Yes / No 06.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Indu To The I Additional District Court, Madurai.

3/4

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

Indu 06.01.2026 4/4