BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 19.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD).No.413 of 2026 S.Madhu ... Petitioner Vs Mohanraj ... Respondent PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 16.10.2025 made in RLTA.No.01 of 2025 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge (Rent Tribunal), Karur, reversing the fair and decretal order made in RLTOP.No.01 of

2024, on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Karur.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakar For Respondent : Mr.I.Velpradeep

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 16.10.2025 made in RLTA No.01 of 2025 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge (Rent Tribunal), Karur, reversing the fair and decretal order made in RLTOP No.01 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Karur.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court, which is extracted hereunder:

“31. On perusal of the records, in the grounds of relief the petitioner/landlord states that, in fact, there is no lease agreement between the petitioner and the respondent and that the respondent is a chronic and wilful defaulter in payment of rent from November 2022. It is further stated that there are huge arrears of Rs.1,54,000/- payable by him to the applicant and that the petition mentioned property is required by the applicant for his personal use and occupation. In the relief sought, the petitioner/landlord prays for an order to evict the appellant/respondent and for delivery of possession of the petition mentioned property to the applicant for want of registration of the lease agreement before the Rent Authority as provided under the Act and also for delivery of possession of the property as the applicant requires the same for his personal use and occupation to run his business. This Court is of the view that the pleadings and the prayer are inconsistent. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable.

32. For the findings given to the foregoing issues, I hold that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the petition which was filed by the respondent/petitioner/landlord without mentioning the provision of law and due to inconsistency in the pleadings and prayers. Hence, the order of the trial Court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court in RLTOP No.1 of 2024 dated 03.01.2025. Hence, I am inclined to allow this RLTA. Accordingly, the points 1 to 3 are answered.”

4. The primary contention of the revision petitioner is that when the Court has observed that there is a misconception regarding the provision of law and inconsistency in the pleadings and prayers, the Court ought to have discussed the alleged inconsistency in detail. However, the impugned order does not reflect any discussion regarding such inconsistency between the pleadings and the prayer.

5. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petition was filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. His submission is that there was no written agreement between the petitioner and the respondent as landlord and tenant and that the respondent was in arrears of rent and also in unauthorised occupation.

6.To support his case, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of S. Muruganandam & Others Vs. J. Joseph & Others, decided in C.R.P.(MD) No.3056 of 2021 and batch, reported in 2022 (2) CTC 291 and

2022 Supreme (Mad) 145.

7.The learned Judge, in the above case, discussed in detail about the new Act and classified the situations that may arise between the landlord and tena