Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Sounthar, J
C.P.Atchuthan – Appellant
Versus
Md.Nayeemur Rahman – Respondent
CRP No. 5497 of 2025 | CMP No.27647 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Thirumoorthy
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Sunil Kumar
Investments made by a tenant do not negate the landlord's right to eviction under tenancy laws.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their application regarding the right of examination under Section 36(2) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017. The original application sought repossession of property, with the petitioner claiming substantial investment. The court found no grounds warranting interference with the dismissal of the application. The key issue centered on rights under the tenancy act and the findings concluded no irregularity in trial court's dismissal. The petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenant claims for right to examination regarding investment. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. court confirms dismissal based on the absence of proper grounds. (Para 5) |
| 3. civil revision petition is dismissed. (Para 6) |
ORDER
This civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the court below, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, seeking right of his examination in the main RLTOP No.261 of 2024.
2. The first respondent herein filed a petition in RLTOP No.261 of 2024 under Section 21(1)(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 against the petitioner herein and another (2nd respondent), seeking eviction and re-possession of the property.
3 . It is the case of the first respondent/landlord that after coming into force the New Act, no agreement was entered into between him and the petitioner under the provisions of the New Act and hence, repossession is sought for. The petitioner herein filed counter, denying various averments found in the petition for repossession.
4. The petitioner, in his counter to the main RLTOP, has not raised any plea regarding investment or improvement made by him in the demised premises. Now, the instant application has been filed seeking right of his examination before court under Section 36(2) of the Act, mainly on the ground that the petitioner invested Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- in the demised premises and if the land lord is willing to pay the invested amount, the petitioner is ready to vacate and hand over the possession of the property to the first respondent. In order to substantiate the plea raised in the instant application that the petitioner invested huge amount, he seeks right of examination.
5. It is pertinent to note that in the counter filed by the petitioner to the original RLTOP, he has not averred anything about the investment or improvement made by him in the premises. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, for the first time, he raised this plea by filed an application under Section 36(2) of the Act. Further, even if the petitioner/tenant made any investment or improvements in the demised premises, it may not be a ground to deny the right of eviction available to the first respondent/landlord under section 21(1)(2)(a) of the Act. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the legal position and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and I do not find any irregularity or infirmity to interfere with the same. The petitioner is entitled to file his affidavit in lieu of recording of his evidence before court, as per summary procedure contemplated under Tamil Nagu Regulation of Rights of Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.
6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
