BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.793 of 2026

1.Hasanudeen

2.Nawas ... Petitioners -vs.-

Syed Mohamed through his Power Agent, Seeni Mohamed ...Respondents PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the impugned fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.04 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.2 of 2023 passed by the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, dated 25.08.2025 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram.

For Petitioners :Mr.S.A.S.Alaudeen *****

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, in I.A.No.04 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.2 of 2023, dated 25.08.2025.

2.Heard Mr.S.A.S.Alaudeen, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners.

3.The respondent is the landlord and the petitioners are the tenants over the subject property. The respondent has filed a petition in R.L.T.O.P.No.2 of 2023 before the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram, to vacate the petitioners herein. In the petition, the respondent was represented by the power agent. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners herein have filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.2 of 2023 to reject the eviction petition as well as the proof affidavit filed by the respondent. The learned District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, vide order, dated 25.08.2025 had dismissed the said application, as no ground has been made by the petitioners. Challenging the same, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the tenants under the respondent and that the power agent of the respondent cannot depose any evidence on behalf of the Principal, as he has no personal knowledge about the suit schedule property. He also questioned the ownership of the respondent over the subject property. It is his vehement contention that the power agent has no personal knowledge about the transaction, which taken place between the petitioners and the respondent's father and that he cannot depose and examine the witness on behalf of the Principal. He further submitted that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity and procedural illegality, as the Court below has entertained an eviction petition without proof of title. He has also raised various grounds with regard to the landlord-tenant relationship, improper acceptance of power of attorney evidence and seeks interference of this Court.

5.This Court considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

6.From the perusal of the records would reveal that the grounds raised by the revision petitioners are all triable in nature and that the petitioners have not made out a case rejecting the eviction petition at the initial stage and that whatever the grounds raised by the petitioners can very well be adjudicated at the time trial and that filing a petition to reject the eviction petition at the initial stage cannot be maintainable and this Court does not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Court below.

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

27.01.2026 Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No cmr To The District Munsif, Ramanathapuram.

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

cmr

27.01.2026