C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022

and C.M.P.No.2748 of 2022

E.Kanniappan

...Petitioner

Vs

1. N.Chandrasekaran

2. N.Hemalatha

3. N.Uma

4. R.Vijayalakshmi

..Respondents

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1973 praying to set aside the

judgment and decree dated 09.09.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.24 of 2017 on

the file of the Subordinate Court at Poonamallee confirming the judgment and

decree dated 09.06.2017 passed in R.C.O.P.No.40 of 2010 on the file of the

Principal District Munsit at Poonamallee.

For Petitioner

: Mrs.Chitra Sampath,

Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sai Shankar

For Respondents : Mr.B.Ganesha Moorthy

1/7

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

C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022

ORDER

Challenging the order dated 09.09.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.24 of

2007 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamalee, the tenant has preferred

this Civil Revision Petition.

2.Originally, R.C.O.P.No.40 of 2010 was filed by the

respondents/landlords for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment

of rent. The said R.C.O.P. was allowed on the ground of default, own use

and occupation. Challenging that, the tenant has preferred R.C.A.24 of 2007

on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. On hearing both sides, the

Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, confirming the finding of the Rent

Controller. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the

tenant has preferred this revision.

3.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant submits that

already O.S.No.126 of 1999 was filed by the landlords/respondents herein on

the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, for termination of tenancy

and recovery of possession and the same was decreed in favour of the

landlords/respondents on 27.09.2004 on merits. Till date, the said decree is

in force. So, the landlords are not entitled to invoke the provisions under the

2/7

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

C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. As per the judgement

passed in the earlier suit in O.S.No.126 of 1999, the tenancy was terminated.

So, the petitioner herein is no longer a tenant under the respondents/landlord

for complying with the orders of the Courts below. Both the Courts below

have erroneously ordered eviction by invoking the Rent Control proceedings.

Hence, he prays for setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority.

4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents argues that

at the time of filing of the earlier suit, the provisions of the said Rent Control

Act was not extended in respect of the area in dispute. Subsequently, due to

the jurisdictional change, the Village was upgraded as Municipality, due to

which, the Rent Control Act got automatically extended. Therefore, the

respondents/landlords had filed R.C.O.P for eviction by invoking the said

Rent Control Act and the Courts below have rightly allowed the petition and

ordered eviction, which needs no interference by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has produced an order

of this Court dated 13.12.2022 made in C.R.P.Nos.1616 and 1617 of 2019,

wherein, the learned Judge has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in C.A.No.2816 of 2022 in the case of Shankarlal Nadani Vs

3/7

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

C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022

Sohanlal Jain in which the judgment reported in 2017 (4) SCC 202

(Rajender Bansal and Others Vs Bhuru (Dead) Through legal

representatives and Others) was relied on, wherein, it has been held as

follows:

“18.1. Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the

date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the law

applicable on the date of filing of the suit will c