CRP(NPD) No.4694 of 2017 and

CMP No.1445 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 30.07.2021

Pronounced on : 17.08.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

CRP(NPD) No.4694 of 2017

and

CMP No.1445 of 2021

R.Mahalakshmi

Petitioner

Vs.

B.Sukumar

Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the

Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 seeking to set

aside the Judgment and decree dated 01.10.2017 made in R.C.A.No.4

of 2016 passed by the learned IX Small Cause Judge cum Rent Control

Appellate Authority at Chennai by reversing the Judgment and Decree

dated 28.10.2015 made in R.C.O.P.No.904 of 2014 passed by the

learned XVI Small Causes Judge cum Rent Controller at Chennai.

For Petitioner

: Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan

for Mr.P.A.Kumaraguru

For Respondent

: Mr.Seshadri

for M/s.Dhanusu

O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The revision has been filed seeking to set aside the Judgment and

decree dated 01.10.2017 made in R.C.A.No.4 of 2016 passed by the

learned IX Small Cause Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority,

Chennai by reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2015

1/20

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

CRP(NPD) No.4694 of 2017 and

CMP No.1445 of 2021

made in R.C.O.P.No.904 of 2014 passed by the learned XVI Small

Causes Judge cum Rent Controller, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are herein after

referred to as landlord and tenant.

3. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the

landlord. The landlord had filed R.C.O.P.No.904 of 2014 before the Rent

Controller under Section 10(2)(1) of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and

Rent Control) Act stating that the father of the landlord was a

hereditary Trustee of Siddi Buddi Sundara Vinayagar Sri Lakshmi

Amman Devasthanam and absolute owner of two shops bearing Old

Nos.158 and 159, New Nos.198/2 and 198/3, Strahans Road, Pattalam,

Chennai-600 012 and the tenancy was in respect of petition premises

on a monthly rent of Rs.7000/- for each shop for commercial purpose

and that the tenant was a chronic defaulter in payment of rents and

that he had lastly paid the rent for March 2012 and thereafter she failed

and neglected to pay the rents from April 2012 to April 2014

aggregating to Rs.2,80,000/-. Thereafter, the landlord had sent a notice

claiming the rents. But the tenant received the same, however, not

replied.

4. The tenant filed a counter stating that the petitioner in the

R.C.O.P. is neither landlord nor the owner of the petition premises and

there is no landlord-tenant relationship between them and as such, she

2/20

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

CRP(NPD) No.4694 of 2017 and

CMP No.1445 of 2021

is not liable to pay any rent to the petitioner. It was further contended

in the counter that the petition premises was bought by her late father

R.Rajendran from the erstwhile owner for a valid sale consideration

and thereby, the tenant's father became the absolute owner of the two

shops namely the petition premises.

5. On the side of the landlord, he was examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.P.1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the tenant, her mother was

examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked.

6. The Rent Controller, after hearing both the parties, finding that

there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties, had dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal of R.C.O.P.,

the landlord had filed R.C.A.No.4 of 2016. Since, the tenant was not

present before the Court, the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed

the appeal by non-speaking order dated 25.10.2016.

7. Against the order dated 25.10.2016, the tenant filed

C.R.P.(NPD) No.60 of 2017 before this Court and this Court, by order

dated 22.03.2017, allowed the revision petition and remitted the matter

back to deci