BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and CMP(MD) No.1366 of 2026 A.Sampath Kumar ... Petitioner Vs P.Augustin Anbarasan ... Respondent PRAYER :-Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the TN Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 16-10-2025 in R.C.A.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Court), Tiruchirappalli, confirming the order dated 28-08-2024 in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Tribunal (I Additional District Munsif Court), Tiruchirappalli.

For Petitioner : Ms.Rukmani for Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order made in R.C.A.No.25 of 2024 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tiruchirappalli, dated 16.10.2025, confirming the order made in RCOP.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Tribunal (I Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, dated 28.08.2024.

2.The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is a landlord.

The respondent initiated rent control proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2019 before the Rent Control Tribunal (I Additional District Munsif Court), Tiruchirappalli, seeking an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground of own use and occupation. After full-fledged trial, on 28.08.2024, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition on the ground of own use and occupation.

3.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A.No.

25 of 2024 before the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal (Principal Sub Court), Tiruchirappalli. The said appeal was also dismissed on 16.10.2025, confirming the order, dated 28.08.2024. Challenging the concurrent judgments, the petitioner/tenant is before this Court. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating all the contentions set out in the memorandum of Revision would submit that the respondent/landlord has failed to establish his bona fide requirement for seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the subject property. It is submitted that mere assertion of requirement is not sufficient; the respondent must substantiate the same with cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the alleged need is genuine, pressing, and bona fide. In the absence of such particulars, the claim of bona fide requirement is vague and un-sustainable. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

6.Admittedly, the respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.26 of

2019 against the petitioner/tenant seeking eviction. The said petition was allowed on 28.08.2024 on the ground of own occupation of the respondent/landlord. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner/tenant preferred R.C.A.No.25 of 2024 and the same was dismissed on

16.10.2025, which is under challenge herein.

7.From the careful perusal of the entire papers, particularly the orders passed by the Court below, it is seen that the respondent/landlord had instituted eviction proceedings on the ground of bona fide requirement, namely, own use and occupation.

The Rent Controller, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the building in question requires own use and occupation of the respondent. Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/tenant preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, on re- appreciation of the entire materials available on record, concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction, holding that the tenant cannot dictate or decide, in what manner or in which building, the landlord should carry on the business.

8.It is to be noted that the landlord, b