IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and CMP.No.2906 of 2025 B. Vasantha Kumar ..Petitioner in both CRPs Vs V.P. Sivakumar ..Respondent in both CRPs Prayer in CRP No.2906 of 2025: Revision filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960 to set aside the order and final order dated 19.12.2024 passed in RCA No.2 of 2021 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, confirming the fair and final order dated 23.04.2021 passed in RCOP No.24 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-I Additional District Munsif Coimbatore and dismiss the petition for eviction by allowing this CRP.

Prayer in CRP No.6532 of 2025: Revision filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960 to set aside the order and final order dated 19.12.2024 passed in IA No.2 of 2024 in RCA No.2 of 2021 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore, RCOP No.24 of 2017 order dated 23.04.2021 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Cum Rent Controller, Coimbatore and allow the petition to receive additional documents by allowing this CRP.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.S.Swaminathan For Respondent: S.Raghuman

COMMON ORDER

Heard Mr.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Raghuman, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The revision petitions arises out of an order passed in Rent Control Original Petition where the respondent sought for eviction on the ground of wilful default and additional accommodation. Pending the RCOP, the respondent preferred an application under Section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, in IA No.344 of 2018. In the said 11(4) application, the respondent claim that the petitioner has not paid the rents right from the date of his acquiring the property by way of a registered sale deed from the erstwhile owner Rajathiammal, in and by sale deed dated 26.12.2011. The Rent Controller allowed the 11(4) application and directed to deposit of Rs.3,20,000/- in view of the default committed by the petitioner and passed a consequential order of eviction, which was challenged by the petitioner in RCA No.2 of 2021.

3. It appears that the order in the Section 11(4) application has also been challenged independently, along with an application for condonation of delay.

However, the fate of the condone delay application or the appeal is not exactly known to both the counsel. However, it is agreed by both the counsel that the said RCA has been disposed of against the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Swaminathan that the petitioner was not even aware of the purchase of the property by the respondent and only for the first time when a notice was issued on 20.12.2016, by the respondent, claiming that he has purchased the property from Rajathiammal, that the petitioner was even aware that Rajathiammal had sold the property to the respondent. Reply notice was sent on 03.01.2017 stating that upto December, 2016, rents have been paid to Rajathiammal month after month and there is no default. The petitioner has further stated in the reply notice that if the respondent establishes the factum of purchase, he is willing to pay rents to the respondents. Since no rents were forthcoming despite the notice and such a stand had been taken, the respondent proceeded to file RCOP No.24 of 2017 alleging wilful default and also stating that the premises was acquired for the respondent by way additional accommodation. Pending the RCOP, the Section 11(4) application as already stated was filed and allowed. The learned Rent Controller has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has filed a lodgment schedule for Rs.12,000/- and has calculated the arrears right from the date of purchase made by the respondent and directed deposit of Rs.3,20,000/- .

4. Mr.Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant wou