BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.19501 of 2025 T.Gangadharan ... Petitioner -vs.-

G.K.Punithavathi ...Respondent PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree in E.P.No.37 of 2024 dated 04.11.2025 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town in R.L.T.O.P.No.52 of 2022 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai.

For Petitioner :Ms.S.Indhu For Respondent :Mr.R.Senthil Kumar *****

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, in E.P.No.

37 of 2024, dated 04.11.2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.52 of 2022.

2.Heard Ms.S.Indhu, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent.

3.The petitioner is the tenant under the respondent. The respondent herein has filed a petition in R.L.T.O.P.No.52 of 2022 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai, under Section 21(2)(a) and 21(2)(g) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, seeking an order of eviction against the petitioner/tenant and for other reliefs on the ground of own occupation and failure to enter into a lease agreement by the petitioner as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The said petition was partly allowed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai, vide order, dated 29.11.2023. Thereafter, the respondent/landlord has filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.37 of 2024 and the same was allowed by order, dated 04.11.2025. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is without considering the materials evidence available on record and without considering the submissions made by the petitioner/tenant. It is her further submission that the impugned order passed by the Court below is without considering the fact that the petitioner is not a defaulter in payment of the rent, instead, he spent a sum of Rs.6 lakhs for repairing and restoration of the structure of the house on the instruction of the respondent/landlord. The learned Counsel also submitted that the order passed by the Court below is non est in the eye of law and needs interference of this Court.

5.Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as against the order passed in RLTOP, the petitioner/tenant has not filed any appeal and he has not produced any order of stay by the appellate Court and hence, the order passed in the RLTOP reached finality and that the impugned order passed by the Court below is a well considered order and needs no interference and sought dismissal of this Civil Revision Petition.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that against the order passed in RLTOP, the petitioner/tenant has not filed any appeal or he has not produced any order of stay by appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the order passed in RLTOP has reached finality and no relief can be given to the Revision Petitioner. Further, on perusal of the order passed by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, in E.P.No.37 of 2024, dated 04.11.2025, this Court does not find any error or illegality or infirmity, which needs interference of this Court.

7.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.12.2025 Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No cmr To

1.The II Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town.

2.The Principal District Munsif, Madurai.

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

cmr

09.12.2025