IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.07.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR C.R.P.No.4320 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.26300 of 2023 Willson ... Petitioner Vs.

1.Vijayalakshmi

2.G.Bhakiyalakshmi ... Respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Katpadi, dated 25.08.2022 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2022, confirming the order of the District Munsif, Katpadi, in R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2009 dated 10.11.2020.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Balasubramanian Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ranjith Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel for M/s.Srimathi V.

O R D E R

Challenging the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Katpadi, in R.C.A.No.1 of 2022, dated 25.08.2022, confirming the order of the learned District Munsif, Katpadi, in R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2009, dated 10.11.2020, ordering eviction under Section 10(2)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, the present revision has been filed by the tenant.

2.The respondents filed the application in R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2009 for eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises under Section 10(2)(c) of the Act. It is the case of the respondents that they, along with one Venkatesan, have purchased the subject property from one A.S.Sarkar under registered sale deeds dated 14.12.2001 and took possession of the same. The petitioner was already a tenant under A.S.Sarkar on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. Immediately after the purchase, the respondents intimated about the purchase to the petitioner and called upon him to attorn tenancy in favour of the petitioners and the said Venkatesan, and to pay the future rent from 14.12.2001 to the respondents and Venkatesan. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner also accepted the same and paid the rent of Rs.1,000/- for one month to the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner did not pay the monthly rent to the respondents upto 15.01.2002. Therefore, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 08.03.2002 informing the petitioner to terminate any tenancy agreement, if any, with the previous owner and to attorn tenancy with the respondents and also to pay the rental arrears to the respondents. The said notice was returned with an endorsement “door locked”. Thereafter, the respondents once again sent a notice dated 07.04.2007 intimating the petitioner that the tenancy was terminated on and from 31.02.2007 and to deliver vacant possession of the property to the respondents and also to pay the rental arrears. Despite receipt of the said notice on 23.04.2007, the petitioner did not reply to the same nor paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. Therefore, contending that the petitioner has committed willful default in payment of rent, the respondents filed the eviction petition before the Rent Controller.

3.Before the Rent Controller, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is a statutory tenant under one A.S.Sarkar. It is the specific case of the the petitioner that he was not aware of the transaction between his landlord A.S.Sarkar and the respondents, nor was he a party to the same. The petitioner has been paying rent only to his original landlord A.S.Sarkar. Admitting the receipt of the notice dated 07.04.2007, it is the contention of the petitioner that, since there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, he ignored the same and did not send any reply. It is the further contention of the petitioner that, apart from the respondents, there is yet another purchaser namely Venkatesan, however, after his death, his legal heir, namely V.Mahadevi @ Mahalakshmi, has not been impleaded, and the eviction petition has been filed without her knowledge and consent. Accordingly, the petitioner opposed the eviction petition.

4.Before the Rent Court, the 2^nd respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. On the other side, the petitioner examined