IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.06.2024 CORAM:

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP C.R.P.No.1735 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.13482 of 2021

1.Abdul Khader (Died)

2.Kolusambeevi 3.Joolaiga Beevi

4.Mohamed Yaseen

5.Nilavar Nisha

6.Sahul Hameed

7.Nargees Subhagan

8.Mumthaj

9.Abdul Rahman ... Petitioners [Sole Petitioner died. Petitioners 2 to 9 brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased sole Petitioner viz., Abdul Khader vide Court order dated 21.04.2023 made in CMP Nos.8031 & 8034 of 2023 in CRP No.1735]

Versus Thiagarajan ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A. No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Court, Tiruvarur, dated 24.01.2020 reversing the fair order and decretal order of the learned Rent Controller, District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, passed in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 dated 28.11.2018.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.G.Ashok Kumar for Mr.C.Jagadish For Respondent : Mr.G.Govarthanam for Mr.B.Ramamoorthy

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition had been filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sub Judge/

Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruvarur, dated 24.01.2020.

2. The brief facts which are relevant to decide this Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-

2.1. The deceased 1^st Revision Petitioner herein was impleaded as Respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 shown as a tenant. R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 was filed by one Thiagarajan, claiming himself to be the landlord. The Respondent had filed counter in the R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 disputing the claim of the Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 before the learned Rent Controller. The Respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 claimed that he had purchased the superstructure through a registered sale deed in the year 1975 from one Kamruddin, the site belonged to Dharmapuram Adheenam. Therefore, the Respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 is a tenant under the Dharmapuram Adheenam and the superstructure belonged to him. The Respondent had mortgaged the property with one Palaniammal, W/o.Murugayan for Rs.4 lakhs. At the time of obtaining loan, the said Palaniammal had obtained signatures of the Respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 in blank papers and created false documents as though the Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 had purchased the property from Palaniammal through an unregistered sale deed and Respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 had executed sale agreement deed. The Respondent disputed the claim of the Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 that the Respondent as a tenant. The Respondent asserted that he is the owner of the property and not a tenant under the Petitioner.

2.2. During enquiry, the Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 was examined as P.W-1. Exhibits were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-P11. The Respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 was examined as R.W-1 and the documents relied by the Respondent were marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3. After assessment of the evidence, the learned Rent Controller/District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, dismissed the R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 by order dated 28.11.2018.

2.3. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sub Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruvarur. The learned Sub Judge, Tiruvarur, by judgment dated 24.01.2020 reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller, District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Nannilam, holding that the Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011 / Appellant in R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 as owner of the property based on the unregistered sale agreement deed.

3. Aggrieved by the finding of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Court, Tiruvarur allowing R.C.A.No.1 of 2019 filed by the Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011, the Respondent in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2011, who is the Respondent in R.C.A.No.1 of 2019, had filed