The court affirmed that eviction proceedings are confined to landlord-tenant relationships, dismissing claims for third-party impleadment in such cases.

ORDER

Unsuccessful proposed party has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

2. Originally Mrs.Fathima Shahul Hameed, represented by her Power Agent, Mr.E.M.Abdul Jaffar, filed R.L.T.O.P. No.509 of 2024 on the file of the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act , 2019, seeking an order directing the respondent to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the shop portion run by the respondent. During the proceedings, the proposed party, Mr.G.K.Mohammed Sahil (the revision petitioner), filed an application in M.P.No.3 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.509 of 2024 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to implead himself as one of the respondents in the R.L.T.O.P proceedings. Upon hearing either side, the Court below, vide order dated 08.09.2025, dismissed the application on the ground that the R.L.T.O.P had been filed seeking eviction on the ground of non-execution of a written agreement as contemplated under Section 4 (2) of the Act, 2017. The Court below held that in such an application, no other issue could be decided except whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. According to the revision petitioner, the second respondent /

Mr.Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, executed an unregistered Power of Attorney dated 01.04.2024 in favour of the revision petitioner, who has since been in occupation of the premises and carrying on business there with proper sanctions and permission from the competent authorities. In such circumstances, the first respondent / Mrs.Fathima Shahul Hameed, filed the eviction proceedings against the said second respondent / Mr.Basheer Ahmed Sayeed to evict him from the premises. The second respondent / Mr.Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, in colluded with the first respondent /

Mrs.Fathima Shahul Hameed, appeared before the Rent Court and falsely stated that he had not executed any Power of Attorney in favour of anyone and sought time to file a memo in the R.L.T.O.P.

4. It is pertinent to note that the Power of Attorney dated 01.04.2024 executed between the revision petitioner and the second respondent was well known to the first respondent, who had also given her consent. The revision petitioner has been carrying on business in the petition premises and remains in physical possession thereof. Despite this, the first respondent / Mrs.Fathima Shahul Hameed, failed to implead the revision petitioner as a party in the R.L.T.O.P proceedings.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the Court below failed to consider that the second respondent / Mr.Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, had executed an unregistered Power of Attorney dated 01.04.2024 in favour of the petitioner for carrying on the business. Further, Court below failed to consider that the revision petitioner had obtained a valid license from the competent authorities and was running the business lawfully. The learned counsel further submitted that the Court below failed to take into account that the second respondent / Mr.Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, had colluded with the first respondent, and though he was appearing in the Court proceedings, he has not authorised any power to any agent to represent him and he sought time to file a memo on 28.04.2025, and subsequently, the second respondent / Mr.Basheer Ahmed Sayeed filed a memo in the RLTOP proceedings stating that the general Power of Attorney earlier executed by him had been cancelled, and therefore, it was no longer i