IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 30.04.2025 Delivered on : 21.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA C.R.P.Nos.1285 and 1065 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.6114 and 7681 of 2025 K.Thamaraiselvan Petitioner vs.

Mrs.Sivakami Sachitanandam Respondent C.R.P.No.1285 of 2025 Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 14.2.2025 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in R.L.T.A.No.248 of 2023 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2023 in R.L.T.O.P.No.643 of 2022 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

C.R.P.No.1065 of 2025 Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 1.2.2025 passed E.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.A.No.3 of 2024 in E.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Ms.Narmadha Sampath for Ms/.S.Kumarsankar For Respondent : Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel for M/s.PV Law Associates COMMON ORDER A tenant, who stands evicted by the order dated 14.2.2025 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in R.L.T.A.No.248 of 2023 and the findings rendered by the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in R.L.T.A.No.248 of 2023 by judgment dated 14.2.2025 concurring with the Rent Controller, has preferred the present civil revision petitions, one challenging the concurrent findings and the other challenging the order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the Application filed by him to issue subpoena to the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer of the Tamil Nadu Hosing Board of Anna Nagar Division.

2. Brief facts of the case:-

i) The respondent herein had filed the petition for eviction and recovery of arrears, contending that she, being landlady in respect of the demised premises, a two-storied building of an extent of 1350 sqft and adjoining vacant land totally measuring an extent of 2050 sqft, had let the same to the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/- from 25.2.2010, which was enhanced to Rs.33,000/- from April 2013 and the revision petitioner defaulted in payment of rent and added to that the demised premises was required for the occupation of her daughter.

ii) Having contended that there is no written agreement in respect of letting out the demised premises in view of non-inclination of the revision petitioner to sign any such document, the respondent claims to have requested the revision petitioner to deliver the vacant possession of the demised premises in May 2017 as it was required for the occupation of her daughter, who was to return from USA, for which the revision petitioner had assured to delivery the same in December 2017 and requested the respondent herein to deduct the rent from and out of the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-, however, the revision petitioner had not delivered the vacant possession as assured by her, instead, filed a suit in O.S.No.2166 of 2018 under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC seeking for permanent injunction against the respondent herein and another suit in R.C.O.P.No.1181 of 2018 seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the demised premises.

iii) While the petition in R.C.O.P.No.1181 of 2018 filed by the revision petitioner seeking fixation of fair rent was dismissed for default, on 26.10.2021 by the Rent Controller/XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and the petition in M.P.No.2 of 2021 seeking restoration of the said RCOP was also dismissed by order dated 10.3.2022, the suit in O.S.No.2166 of 2018 filed by him was decreed on 14.11.2022 by the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai granting him permanent injunction in respect of the demised premises.

iv) In the meanwhile, on 2.9.2022, the landlady/respondent herein had filed the eviction petition in R.L.T.O.P.No.643 of 2022 on the ground of own occupation and also for recovery of arrears of rent, contending that the revision petitioner had been in default in payment of rent from