The court affirmed the validity of a rental agreement and upheld the eviction order despite claims of fraud, recognizing the Rent Court's authority to conduct summary proceedings.

ORDER

The tenant before the Rent Court aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Rent Court and confirmed by the Rent Tribunal is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel, the learned counsel for M/s.BFS Legal, for the petitioner/tenant and Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Muralikrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord.

3. Pending the revision, the petitioner has also moved Miscellaneous Petition in CMP. No.26857 of 2025 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to send the original document viz., receipt dated 10.08.2017, which has been marked as Ex.P2 before the Rent Court and the Life Certificate annexed in Ex.P4, sale deed dated 10.08.2017 to the Forensic Department for examination and obtaining expert opinion regarding the authenticity of the signature alleged to have been affixed by the revision petitioner, by comparing the same with the admitted signatures in cheques dated 13.03.2017, 02.11.2018 and 13.02.2019.

4. I have heard the Civil Miscellaneous Petition along with the Civil Revision Petition. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, would first submit that there has been a total denial of any jural relationship of landlord and tenant and in such circumstances, the Rent Court did not have the jurisdiction to even decide the RLTOP in the first place. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that it is a classic case of fraud where the original owner of the property is being projected as a tenant and is sought to be thrown out of the premises. The learned Senior Counsel inviting me to the Power of Attorney executed by the revision petitioner in favour of one Siddharth, in and by registered Power of Attorney in Doc. No.1907 of 2016, dated 10.06.2016, would submit that the said Power of Attorney has been misused to create a sale deed dated 10.08.2017, in and by which the property has been mischievously and fraudulently transferred to the mother of the power agent himself, that too, for a partly sale consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-. In this connection, Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the sale deed under which the petitioner purchase the property way back in the year 2002, for a sum of Rs.19,89,535/- and by no stretch of imagination, any prudent would have parted with such property situate in heart of city in Chennai for a throw away consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- in the year 2017.

5. Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S. No.6374 of 2022, where the petitioner challenges the very Power of Attorney and Sale Deed, in and by which she has been divested of right, title and interest and pending the suit, the Rent Court and the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded to treat the petitioner as a tenant and passed an order of eviction. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that it is the specific case of the revision petitioner that her signature was obtained in blank papers and the same has been misused to bring about the alleged rental agreement, based upon which alone the eviction petition came to be filed before the Rent Court. He would therefore submit that when substantial and larger issues are to be decided in the Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, summary proceedings could not have been taken before the Rent Court and serious prejudice and injustice has been caused to the petitioner, by directing her to hand over possession of her own property.

6. The learned Senior Counsel also submit that even pending the RLTOP before the Rent Court, the