SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74864

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P.B. BALAJI
M. Ganesshan – Appellant
Versus
K. Vijayanandhan – Respondent



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Order reserved on : 03.12.2025 Order pronounced on : 19.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP.No.4049 of 2023

M.Ganesshan ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.K.Vijayanandhan

2.V.Vijayashri ... Respondents

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

Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, to set aside the fair and final

order dated 31.03.2023 in R.C.A.No.5 of 2022 on the file of the Rent

Control Appellate Authority / Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore

against I.A.No.359 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.no.203 of 2018 on the file of the

Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mukunth

Senior Counsel

for M/S.Sarvabhauman Associates

For Respondents : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 09:44:59 pm )

##PAGE2##

ORDER

The landlord, aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority

in R.C.A.No.5 of 2022, is the revision petitioner.

2.I have heard Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel for

M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned counsel for the respondents.

3.Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner would contend that in an eviction application filed by the

petitioner against the respondents, on the grounds of willful default in

payment of rents and the requirement of the petition building for demolition

and reconstruction, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.359 of 2018 under

Section 11(3) of the Act. The learned Rent Controller has passed an order

under Section 11(4) of the Act, directing payment of arrears, specifying

amounts to be paid by the respondents. The said order was challenged by

the tenants in RCA.No.5 of 2022 and at the time of granting interim stay in

the said RCA, a conditional order has been passed, directing the

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 09:44:59 pm )

##PAGE3##

respondents to deposit a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. The said order has been

complied with and taking that into account, the Appellate Authority has

allowed the appeal, directing adjustment of the sum of Rs.15 lakhs paid at

the time of complying with the conditional order granting stay, towards

arrears of rent for four different portions.

4.Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel would further submit that

the dispute now pertains only to one amongst the four portions, namely

Door No.520/1 and in respect of remaining Door Nos.520/2, 520/3 and

520/4, possession has already been taken. It is the further contention of

Mr.S.Mukunth, learned Senior Counsel that as on the date of the order being

passed by the Appellate Authority, the respondents were in arrears of more

than Rs.29 lakhs in respect of Door No.520/1 alone, besides arrears of

Rs.12,79,750/- each in respect of Door Nos.520/2, 520/3 and 520/4. The

learned Senior Counsel, referring to the findings of the Appellate Authority,

would contend that the Appellate Authority ought not to have allowed the

appeal, even to the extent of adjustment of the amount of Rs.15 lakhs

towards arrears of four portions, when admittedly the amount paid by the

respondents was not even sufficient to cover the arrears in respect of the

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 09:44:59 pm )

##PAGE4##

subject Door No.520/1. He would therefore pray for the revision being

allowed.

5.Per contra, Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan, learned counsel appearing

for the respondents would invite my attention to the order passed in

I.A.No.359 of 2018 and contend that the Rent Controller had specifically

found the petitioner to be in arrears of Rs.3,65,500/- in respect of

RCOP.Nos.201 of 2018 and 211 of 2018 and Rs.7,20,000/- in respect of

RCOP.No.203 of 2018 and Rs.1,19,000/- in respect of RCOP.No.209 of

2018. He would therefore contend that the amount of Rs.15 lakhs that has

been paid can be adjusted only towards the arrears in respect of Door

No.520/1 as in respect of other portions, possession has already been taken

and the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top