BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and CMP(MD) No.2942 of 2026 Nagaraj ... Petitioner vs.

Subramanian ... Respondent PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 25 of the TN Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 23.09.2025 passed in RCA No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Subordinate Court, Devakottai confirming the Fair and Decreetal order dated 05.02.2020 passed in RCOP No.1 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Controller cum District Munsif Court, Devakottai.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Subordinate Judge, Devakottai in RCA.No.2 of 2020 dated 23.09.2025, in confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller cum District Munsif, Devakottai in RCOP.No.1 of 2017, dated 05.02.2020.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as landlord and tenant.

3.RCOP.No.1 of 2017 was launched by the landlord invoking the provisions of Section 10(2)(i) of the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960. According to the landlord, the demised premises belong to the family of one Swaminathan Chettiar. The legal representatives of the said Swaminathan Chettiar were in possession and enjoyment of the same, by leasing it out and recovering rents from the tenants.

4.One Meenatchi Sundaram Chettiar was the predecessor in title of the present landlord. He passed away in 2005. Thereafter, his wife, Saraswathi Achi was collecting rents. From 01.04.2009, the present landlord started collecting rents from the tenant. The tenancy was oral. It was agreed that the tenant would pay a monthly rent of Rs.275/-. Pleading that the tenant had not paid rents from July 2015, he invoked the provision for eviction and filed RCOP.No.1 of 2017.

5.Summon was served on the tenant. He entered appearance through a counsel. He filed a detailed counter denying the title of the landlord. According to him, the property is a Poramboke land, on which, his grandfather had encroached and constructed the building. As there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he urged that the RCOP is absolutely untenable.

6.On the basis of these pleadings, the parties entered the witness box. On the side of the landlord, he entered the witness box as P.W1. He marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On the side of the tenant, the tenant examined himself as R.W1 and one Sinthamani was examined as R.W2. Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 were marked by the tenant.

7.Relying upon Ex.P12 and Ex.P16, the Rent Controller was convinced that a relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. As the tenant was not in a position to give a proper explanation for the period of default, the learned Judge concluded that the default not only existed but was willful. Hence, he allowed the petition.

8.Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred RCA.No.2 of 2020.

On a re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority came to a conclusion that the plea set up by the tenant was not tenable and consequently, confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Against the said concurrent orders, the present Civil Revision Petition.

9.I heard Mr.C.Jeya Prakash in support of the Revision.

10.Mr.C.Jeya Prakash urges that, he had examined RW.2 to substantiate his plea that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the eviction petition. In addition, he pointed out that the signature of the tenant is not found under Ex.P17 to Ex.P20 and the same is an act of forgery. Hence, he pleaded that the Revision be admitted and an order of interim stay of eviction be ordered.

11.Mr.C.Jeya Prakash faces two hurdles. One, on the scope of the Revision itself and the second, on the merits of the case.

12.It has been settled by the