IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.No.6123 of 2026

1. B.Ashok Kumar S/o. Balan, No.69/4, Aachi Briryani Stall, Officers Lane, Thiyagarajapuram, Vellore - 632001. Residing at No.5/3, 1st Cross Street, Ponniyamman Kovil Street, Sainathapuram, Vellore -

632001.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. S.Jaishankar S/O. C.Shanmugam, New D.No.25,Old No. 1/12, Southern Street, No.1, Venkatapuram Village and Post, Arcot Taluk, Ranipet District.

2.A.Chidambaram S/o. Arumugam, 13/21A, Kamarajar First Cross Street, DKM College Road, Sainathapuram, Vellore 632 001.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to strike off the proceedings as far as the petitioner concern in RLTOP No.8 of 2022 on the file of the Rent Controller, Vellore cum District Munsif Court, Vellore.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.V.Sajeevkumar For Respondent(s):

ORDER

Challenging the application filed by the 1^st respondent / landlord before the Rent Control Court in RLT O.P. No. 8 of 2022, the second respondent has preferred this revision stating that he is a sub-tenant under the first respondent and that he has already vacated the premises and handed over possession to the first respondent. In fact, according to him, he is a tenant under the landlord and is paying rent to him. By giving wrong information to the Court, the petition was filed, and therefore he seeks to strike off the petition.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the application filed under Section 21(2)(a)(b) & (g) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is maintainable only against a tenant and not against a sub-lessee, and on that ground also he seeks to strike off the petition.

3. Considering the submission and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the 1^st respondent herein/ petitioner filed eviction proceedings under the relevant provision against two respondents. The revision petitioner herein is ranked as second respondent. As per the averments in Paragraph No. 2 of the petition, the landlord leased the property to the second respondent, who in turn sub-leased it to the first respondent and had already vacated the premises.

4. Now, the revision petitioner seeks to strike off the pleadings stating that the correct facts were not placed before the Court and that he is actually a tenant not a subtenant. Admittedly, he accepts the tenancy under the landlord. If he has not vacated the premises and continuously paid the rent, he can prove the same before the Trial Court and is entitled to raise all defences. On that ground, the petition cannot be struck off. The reasons assigned for striking off are not sustainable.

5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No Costs.

16-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri To

1.The Rent Controller, Vellore cum District Munsif Court, Vellore.

2. The Section Officer, VR section, High Court of Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

rri

16-03-2026