C.R.P.No.1471 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On: 23.08.2022

Delivered On: 25.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

C.R.P.No.1471 of 2020

and

C.M.P.No.8537 of 2020

S.Karunanidhi

: Petitioner/Tenant

Vs.

V.Natarajan

: Respondent/Landlord

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition had been filed under Section 25 of Tamil

Nadu Lease and Rent Control Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973

and Act 1 of 1980, seeking to set aside the fair and final order of the learned

Sub Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Tiruvarur, dated 10.03.2020

made in R.C.A.No.1 of 2018 confirming the fair and final order of the

learned District Munsif (Rent Controller), Tiruvarur dated 20.11.2017 made

in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014 and allow the above revision.

For Petitioner

: Mr.A.Arun Babu

For Respondent

: Mr.B.Ramamurthy

1/24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1471 of 2020

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition had been filed seeking to set aside the

fair and final order of the learned Sub Judge (Rent Control Appellate

Authority), Tiruvarur, dated 10.03.2020 made in R.C.A.No.1 of 2018

confirming the fair and final order of the learned District Munsif (Rent

Controller), Tiruvarur dated 20.11.2017 made in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014 and

allow the above revision.

2.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner

was not a tenant in the premises for which R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014 was filed

by the Respondent claiming the property through the Will executed by land

lady, as he was a permissive occupier. The Respondent had instituted the

Petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and construction. He

claimed that he had put on notice to the Petitioner herein, who is

Respondent in R.C.O.P. as tenant, objected his tenancy. The learned

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014, the

Petitioner filed a counter denying the status that he was not a tenant and he

2/24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1471 of 2020

was permissive occupier. Therefore, the Rent Control Original Petition is

not at all maintainable. In spite of the same, learned District Munsif (Rent

Controller) Tiruvarur, ignoring the contentions of Petitioner herein as well

as the evidence, decreed R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2014. Aggrieved by the same, the

Petitioner herein/Respondent before the trial Court had filed R.C.A.No.1 of

2018. In the R.C.A also, the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant was rejected.

3.The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner invited the attention

of this Court to the grounds of Appeal, particularly, the grounds 9, 11, 20 to

24 which is not at all considered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks to set aside the order

passed by the learned Rent Controller which was confirmed and allowed by

the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel for the

Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court in

C.R.P.(NPD).No.3850 of 2009 wherein he relied on paragraphs 13, 14 and

17 to 19 which are extracted as under:

“13. From the materials on record, it is seen that the

petitioners have claimed that the respondent was permitted to reside

in the petition property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.150/-.

3/24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.1471 of 2020

On the other hand, the respondent contended that there is no

landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and respondent.

The respondent is residing in the petition property for more than 30

years prior to filing of R.C.O.P. The respondent has produced

passbook issued by the society, EB card, property tax receipts and

also letters addressed to her to show that she was residing in the

petition property for more than 30 years. The petitioners have not

proved that the said Unnamalai Ammal permi