Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Sakthivel, J
R.Anbalagan (Deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Somaraj Dheekshidar – Respondent
C.R.P. NO.1507 OF 2023 | C.M.P. NO.9951 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Krishna Prabhu
For the Respondents: Mr.Suriya Badrinath for Ms.V.Srimathi
Under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, a landlord can seek eviction for reconstruction without regard to the age or condition of the property.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 - Sections 21(2)(e) and 26 - Eviction proceedings - Tenant defaulted on rent from March to September 2019; landlord seeks eviction citing building condition - Tenant's request for Advocate Commissioner to assess building dismissed - Age and condition considered irrelevant under relevant law - Court upholds dismissal stating landlord's intent to renovate permits eviction irrespective of property condition. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Interlocutory Applications - Standard for granting - Request for Expert Evaluation must satisfy necessity; the Rent Court's discretion not to appoint Advocate Commissioner upheld. (Par. 10)
Facts of the case:
Tenant facing eviction for non-payment of rent and alleged property condition, contending consistent payment and disputing landlord's claims about the building's state. Petitioners, as legal heirs, challenge prior dismissal of Interlocutory Application for inspection by an Advocate Commissioner.
Findings of Court:
Dismissal of application was proper as the age and condition do not impact eviction under the statute; legislation permits landlord improvement regardless of current property state.
Issues: Did the trial court err in dismissing the Tenant's request for an Advocate Commissioner based on the age and condition of the property?
Ratio Decidendi: Under the relevant statutes, considerations about property age and condition are irrelevant to eviction proceedings if the landlord is ready to renovate. Court maintains discretion in evaluating necessity for expert inspections.
Result: Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tenant's default and property ownership. (Para 2) |
| 2. tenant's claims about rental and condition. (Para 3) |
| 3. interlocutory application for inspection. (Para 4) |
| 4. irrelevance of property condition in landlord’s action. (Para 10) |
O R D E R
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal Order passed in I.A. No.17 of
2022 in R.L.T.O.P. No.1 of 2021 on the file of 'the Principal District Munsif Court, Chidambaram' [hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Court'], the Petitioners therein have filed this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The rental premises consists of two shops bearing Door Nos.3A and 3B, East Sannadhi, Chidambaram Town. One Sowdaranayagi was the owner of the property. She passed away on June 18, 2013 leaving behind her only daughter - Sarasa (2nd Respondent herein) as her legal heir. One Rajamanickam, who is the father of the Revision Petitioner, is the original Tenant. After the demise of Rajamanickam, his son - Anbalagan was in possession and enjoyment of the rented premises as Tenant. The 1st Respondent herein is the husband of the 2nd Respondent herein. The Tenant - Anbalagan committed default in payment of rent from March 2019 to September 2019. The Landlord issued a notice demanding Rs.29,400/- as arrears of rent and in turn, the Tenant issued an evasive reply. Furthermore, the building is very old and in a dilapidated condition. The Landlord decided to demolish the existing structure in the front side and put up a new construction. The Landlord have sufficient funds to do the construction. The Landlord require the shop premises for demolition and reconstruction and they gave an undertaking that they will do the construction at the earliest. Stating so, the Respondents filed R.L.T.O.P.
No.1 of 2021 seeking eviction of the Tenant - Anbalagan.
3. The Tenant - Anbalagan filed a counter statement stating that his father took possession of the building as a Tenant nearly 40 years ago. At the time, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.100/- for Door No.3A and at Rs.75/- for Door No.3B. The rent was slowly increased from time to time and the present rent is Rs.750/- for Door No.3A and Rs.500/- for Door No.3B. Similarly, the advance amount was enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The original Tenant / Petitioner's father - Rajamanickam was paying the monthly rent regularly without any default to the Landlord. After the demise of the original Landlord, her daughter - Sarasa (2nd Respondent herein) received the rent from the Petitioner’s father. After the demise of Petitioner's father, the Revision Petitioner - Anbalagan has been paying the rent regularly without any default to the Landlord - Sarasa. The claims of monthly rent for both shops at Rs.4,200/- and advance amount at Rs.7,000/- are incorrect. These shops are empty and there is no business worth the name. The Tenant did not commit any default in payment of rent and the building is not in an old and dilapidated condition. The Landlord does not have necessary funds to put up a new construction. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. During the pendency of enquiry, the Tenant - Anbalagan filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.17 of 2022 seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the rented premises and file report qua age and nature of the rented property with plan. The said Interlocutory Application was dismissed by the Rent Court; it concluded that the Advocate Commissioner alone could not assess the age of the building without the help of a qualified engineer.
5. After the dismissal order, the Tenant - Anbalagan passed away leaving behind his wife and minor daughter as his legal heirs / legal representatives. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order, they have filed this Civil Revision Petition.
6. Mr.R.Krishna Prabhu, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners / legal representatives of deceased Tenant - Anbalagan, would submit that the Tenant was paying the rent without any default. The Landlord's claims that the building
