CRP(MD)No.1123 of 2022

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

CRP(MD)No.1123 of 2022

and

CMP(MD)No.4531 of 2022

1.M.Jeyachandran

2.J.Vaijeyanthi

: Petitioners

Vs.

B.Palanivel

: Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India to call for the records relating to the fair and decreetal order dated

25.04.2022 passed by the Sub Court, Theni, in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.220

of 2018 and set aside the same.

For Petitioners

: Mr.Y.Sasikumar

For Respondent

: Mr.H.Arumugam

*****

1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)No.1123 of 2022

ORDER

The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.220 of 2018 on the file of the

Sub Court, Theni. The suit was filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the

petitioners from the suit property. The petitioners have filed an interlocutory

application in I.A.No.5 of 2022 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the

plaint. The trial Court, by order dated 25.04.2022, dismissed the interlocutory

application and as against the same, the petitioners have moved the instant

revision petition.

2.The respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit as against the petitioners for

eviction, for depositing payment of rent and arrears of rent and for permanent

injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with the proposed

construction of first floor by the respondent in the suit property. The case of the

respondent is that he has purchased the property on 03.08.2017 from the

petitioners and at the request of the petitioners, a tenancy agreement was

entered into between them that the petitioners intended to remain as tenants for

a period of five months on an agreed rent of Rs.5,000/- per month. The

petitioners neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent and therefore, the

respondent filed the suit.

2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)No.1123 of 2022

3.The petitioners filed I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.220 of 2018 to reject

the plaint on the ground that the respondent ought to have initiated proceedings

under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Old Act'). The remedy for the respondent is only before the

competent Rent Controller and not by filing the civil suit. This contention of the

petitioners was not accepted by the trial Court and therefore, the petitioners

have filed this revision petition.

4.Learned Counsel for the petitioners, by referring the provision under

Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of

Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'new Act')

submitted that this Section bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain

any suit or proceedings for eviction except on the question of title and

ownership. However, the trial Court has dismissed the application holding that

the provisions of the Act are not attracted or extended to the Palanichettipatti

Town Panchayat where the suit property is situated.

5.By referring the definition under Section 2(d) of the new Act, learned

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the local authority is defined under

3/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(MD)No.1123 of 2022

the Act as a Town Panchayat or Municipality. Palanichettipatti is a Town

Panchayat within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the new Act, where the suit

property is situated and therefore, the new Act is very much applicable in this

case. He has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Anthony v. Kc.Ittoop and Others [(2000) 6 SCC 394] and submitted that

eviction of tenant can be considered only when an application is moved in that

behalf before the competent Rent Controller. Therefore, the suit is barred under

the new Act, however, the trial Court without considering the same has

dismissed the application.

6.Learned Counsel fo