Tenancy disputes under the Tamil Nadu Rent Act do not permit third-party impleadment without the landlords' consent, upholding the principle of dominus litis.

ORDER

The revision petition is at the instance of the landlords in RLTOP. No.29 of 2021 which has been filed for a direction to the respondents 2 to 9 surrendering vacant possession of the tenanted premises with a further direction to pay arrears of Rs.23,82,000/-, together with interest and compensation of Rs.3,80,000/-.

2. Heard Mr.S.R.Ragunathan, learned counsel for Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Mukunth, leaned Senior Counsel for Mr.H.Shabeer Ali, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mrs.R.Kalpanadevi, learned counsel for the 7^th respondent. Respondents 6, 8 and 9 are given up and there is no appearance on the side of the respondents 3 to 5.

3. Mr.S.R.Ragunathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would state the first petitioner’s husband became entitled the subject property under a registered partition deed of the year 1964 and thereafter, after his demise on 19.05.2001, his wife, the first petitioner, the daughter, second petitioner and son, third petitioner became entitled to the subject property. In 2006, the petitioners filed RCOP. No.126 of 2001 against one Gulabchand, for eviction on the ground of wilful default of rent as well as requirement of the premises for the purposes of demolition. An eviction order was passed on 09.10.2017 and the same was challenged in RCA. No.3 of 2020.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents 1 and 2, on 20.05.2019, fabricated and forged a lease agreement and on the strength of the same, the second respondent attempted to assign the property to the first respondent who was a total stranger. An amount of Rs.25,00,000/- was deposited into the first petitioner’s bank account by the first respondent and immediately on coming to know of the same, the first petitioner has caused a lawyers’ notice on 30.01.2020 and a legal notice to the first respondent on 01.02.2020, stating that he can take back the amount deposited, with ulterior motives. The first petitioner has also lodged a police complaint on 03.02.2020 and the petitioners were also constrained to move a suit in O.S. No.188 of 2020 in February 2020, to restrain the second respondent from subletting or alienating the suit property which belongs to the petitioners absolutely. This suit was pertaining to Door No.328 and similar suits pertaining to Door Nos. 327 and 329 were also filed in O.S. No.199 of 2020. An order of status quo was granted in O.S. No.188 of 2020 in I.A. No.02 of 2020 and on 06.02.2020, the Bank has returned the said sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the account of the first respondent. Thereafter, the second respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction on 27.02.2020 to restrain the defendants from in any manner forcibly vacating the second respondent from the suit property.

5. On the complaint of the petitioners’, a criminal case was also registered against the respondents 1 and 2 amongst others. A quash petition filed by the first respondent came to be dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P. No.11589 of 2020. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the above RLTOP against the respondent 2 to 9 in March 2021. In December 2021, the police authorities have filed a final report stating that further action was dropped. The petitioners have moved this Court in CRP. No.417 of 2023 for expeditious disposal of RLTOP No.29 of 2021 and this Court by order dated 16.03.2023, directed the Rent Court to dispose of the RLTOP within a period of six weeks.

6. In the meantime, the second respondent, on 13.06.2023 filed an application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features of the t