CRP/5035/2026 of Rhotash Singh Vs RM.Palaniappan (Died) 1. Ramu on 14 October 2026

ORDER

After pronouncement of orders in this revision petition, the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords would submit that apart from contractual arrears, the respondents are also liable to pay for damages for use and occupation, as per the decree passed in the civil suit.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant brings to my notice that though initially an ex-parte decree came to be passed, directing the petitioner/tenant to pay damages for use and occupation at Rs.2,93,000/- per month, subsequently the said ex-parte order was set aside at the instance of the petitioner and thereafter, the application itself came to be dismissed for non prosecution and till date, no steps have been taken to either restore the said application or prefer any appeal against the same.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlords however submits that they have moved for restoring the dismissal of the application under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC. It is needless to state that these independent proceedings shall be initiated in accordance with law and none of the observations that may have been made in this order which are clearly pertaining to the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller, will prejudice the civil Court in any manner. However, it is also made clear that in the event of there being any admitted contractual

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per months till the date of the petitioner vacating, the same shall be cleared as indicated herein above.

4. This order shall read with, in conjunction with the order pronounced on 14.10.2026 in CRP.No.5035 of 2026. 14-10-2026 ATA

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No. 5035 of 2026 14-10-2026

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON: 29.09.2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 14.10.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 5035 of 2026 CNR:{HCMA011231472026} Rhotash Singh Prop. Sharp Age Industries, No.1/3, Mount Poonamallee Road, Nandampakkam, Chennai 600 089. ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. RM.Palaniappan (Died)

1. Ramu S/o. RM.Palaniappan, No.55, Vallal Adhiyaman Street, Bagirathi Nagar, Puzhithivakkam, Chennai 600 091. Rep. by his power agent K.Asokan, S/o. Karuppaiah, No.6/9. Kannan Street, MKB Nagar, New Perungalathur, Chengalpattu District.

2. Panchu Palaniappan S/o.RM.Palaniappan, No.55, Vallal Adhiyaman Street, Bagirathi Nagar, Puzhithivakkam, Chennai 600 091. Rep. by his power agent K.Asokan, S/o. Karuppaiah,

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

No.6/9. Kannan Street, MKB Nagar, New Perungalathur, Chengalpattu District.

3. Umayal D/o. RM.Palaniappan, No.869, A/6,E.V.R.Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. Currently residing at 10829, Southbury LN, Frisco, Texas 750 33. Rep. by her power agent K.Asokan, S/o. Karuppaiah, No.6/9. Kannan Street, MKB Nagar, New Perungalathur, Chengalpattu District. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority, Alandur in RCA No.5 of 2021 dated 01.04.2026 by the Learned Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority, Alandur confirming the Judgment and Decree in RCOP No.86 of 2013 dated 13.12.2017 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge/Rent Controller, Alandur as devoid of any merits. For Petitioner(s): M.Venkatakrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel for Mrs.Uma Gopalakrishnan

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority, Alandur, in RCA No.5 of 2021 dated 01.04.2026 by the Learned Subordinate Judge/Appellate Authority, Alandur confirming the Judgment and Decree in RCOP No.86 of 2013 dated 13.12.2017 on the file of the Learned Principal District Judge/Rent Controller, Alandur as devoid of any merits.

2. The revision petitioner is admittedly a tenant who was under the occupation of the tenanted premises belonging to the respondent/landlord. The respondent filed RCOP No.86 of 2013 invoking Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 seeking to fix the fair rent on the revision petitioners at Rs.2,93,000/- per month. The revision petitioner resisted the said fair rent petition contending that the landlord had already instituted a suit for delivery of possession along with the relief for damages for use and occupation in O.S.No.217 of 2002 before the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu and in the said suit, the tenants suffered a decree. It is also mentioned in the counter statement that an appeal preferred in A.S No.42 of 2007 before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu was also dismissed, thereby confirming the decree for recovery of possession. Unsatisfied with the

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

concurrent findings, the revision petitioner moved this Court in second appeal and the second appeal also came to be dismissed. The judgment in the second appeal was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.28136 of 2009 and admittedly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the ground that it was not diligently followed up by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter attempted review by filing a curative petition, which was also unsuccessful. In the meantime, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P No.114 of 2009 to execute the decree for possession and also for conducting an enquiry under Order XII Rule 12 CPC for mesne profits claimed by the petitioner at Rs.2,93,000/- per month payable from September 1997 onwards. Admittedly, the mesne profit application was not prosecuted diligently prosecuted by the respondent/landlord and consequently, it came to be dismissed. However, by filing E.P No.114 of 2009, the respondent has already evicted the revision petitioner from the tenanted premises on …………. Thereafter, in the year 2013, the respondent invoking the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, filed RCOP No.86 of 2013 for fixing the fair rent. Notwithstanding the objections taken by the petitioner that the filing of the fair rent petition after the decree for delivery of possession was not maintainable, the Rent Controller proceeded to fix the fair rent at Rs.2,93,000/- per month. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed RCA No.5 of 2021. As against these concurrent findings, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

3. I have heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.M.Venkatakrishnan, counsel for the petitioner /tenant and Mr.S.Mukund, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs.Uma Gopalakrishnan counsel for the respondents.

4. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel would mainly contend that once the tenant has suffered a decree for eviction, then he ceases to be tenant falling within the definition of “tenant” under Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and therefore, the very filing of the petition for fixation of fair rent, after the decree came to be passed on 28.08.2006 in O.S No.217 of 2002 was not maintainable in the eye of law. In support of his submissions, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Heera Traders v. Kamala Jain reported in (2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 233 as well as the decision of this Court in K.V.Nayak v. Mrs.Chandra Devasagayam reported in 1988(2) LW 99.

5. Per contra, Mr.S.Mukund, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord, would strenuously contend that, on the date of filing of the suit for recovery of possession, the Rent Control Act had not been extended to

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

Poonamallee, where the petitioner’s premises is admittedly situated. Therefore, there was no bar for the landlord to seek fixation of fair rent on the date of the filing of the suit for recovery of possession. He would further contend that there is a distinction between the definition of “tenant” under the Rent Control Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960), as well as new legislation, namely, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (Act 42 of 2017), as amended by Act 39 of 2018. In this regard, he took me through the definitions of “tenant” under the aforesaid enactments and also the definition of “tenant” under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Mr.S.Mukund, learned Senior Counsel contends that the definition of “tenant” as required under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is pari-materia, only with the definition of “tenant” under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (Act 42 of 2017), and not with the erstwhile Rent Control Act, namely, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960. It is, therefore, his submission that when the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Heera Traders, had decided the issue arising under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 alone, the said decision cannot be treated as a binding precedent on this Court to be relied upon and to exempt the tenants from their statutory obligation and liability to pay the fair rent fixed. He would, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision petition and seek for confirmation of the order fixing the fair rent by the Court’s below.

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also gone through the decisions that have been relied upon by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant.

7. For better appreciation, the definition of “tenant” under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) under Section 2(8) is to be appreciated. The same is usefully extracted hereunder: 2(8) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal representative of a deceased tenant who -

(i) in the case of a residential building, had been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant’s family up to the death of the tenant, and

(ii) in the case of a non-residential building, had been in continuous association with the tenant for the purpose of carrying on the business of the tenant up to the death of the tenant and continues to carry on such business thereafter; and a person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant or a person to whom the collection of rents or fees in a public market, cart stand or slaughterhouse of of rents for shops has been formed out or leased by a Municipal Council or a Panchayat Union Council or the Municipal Corporation of Madras or the Municipal

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

Corporation of Madras] Under the new tenancy legislation, namely, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (Act 42 of 2017, the Legislature has started fit to debar from the definition of “tenant” under the erstwhile Act 18 of 1960 and under the new Act, the term “tenant” is defined under Section 2(n), which is extracted hereunder:

(n) “tenant” means a person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is, or but for a contract express or implied, would be payable for any premises and includes any person occupying the premises as a sub-tenant and also, any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy whether before or after the commencement of this Act; but shall not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made;

8. As far as the distinction is concerned, what is significant, on a plain reading of the definition of “tenant” under both the enactments, is that, under the new legislation, a person against whom any order or decree for eviction had already been passed does not fall within the purview of the definition of “tenant”. The very same phraseology is employed to define “tenant” under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 as well. However, at the

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

same time, I am unable to countenance the argument of Mr.S.Mukund, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, that the absence of inclusion of a person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made and required to be excluded from the definition of a “tenant” under Act 18 of 1960 though appears to be plausible does not carry any merit. In fact, the very said issue has been specifically addressed by this Court in K.V.Nayak case referred to herein supra. Hence this Court held that an ejectment decree has been passed, then, the relationship between the parties comes to an end and the defendant who suffered ejectment decree in the ejectment suit cannot fall within the definition of “tenant” under Section 2(8) of the Rent Control Act. If at all, the tenant had not suffered an order of delivery of decree for possession or eviction order of any other competent court and continued to be in possession, then the arguments of Mr.Mukundan, learned Senior Counsel can be accepted. The law laid down by this Court in K.V.Nayak case would squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

9. In the event, insofar as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Heera Traders case is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once an order of eviction or a decree for recovery of possession has been passed against the erstwhile tenant, his status does not remain as a tenant thereafter, and his continuation to occupy the tenanted premises can only be termed wrongful or unlawful. Even assuming that the benefit of doubt could be

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

given to the respondent/landlord, the definition of a “tenant” under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 is not in pari materia with the definition of “tenant” under Section 2(8) of Act 18 of 1960. The very same issue has been addressed by this Court in the Nayak case and therefore, the fair rent petition that has been filed after the decree for recovery of possession is clearly not maintainable. The mere fact that the Act was not extended to Poonamallee at the time of the institution of the suit for recovery of possession cannot be a ground to make Section 4 applicable to the respondent/landlord, by seeking to fix fair rent after having obtained a decree for recovery of possession in a civil suit. Yet another significant factor that weighs in my mind to accept the case of the petitioner is that, at the time of filing of the suit for recovery of possession, the respondent also made a claim for damages for use and occupation. The damages for use and occupation that was sought for was only at the then contractual rate of rent that has been paid by the petitioner. Nothing prevented the respondent/plaintiff from claiming the market rate of rent towards the damages for use and occupation. In fact, even the decree for damages for use and occupation has not been diligently pursued and has been dismissed for non-prosecution.

10. In the light of the above, I am unable to countenance the arguments of Mr.S.Mukund, learned counsel for the respondents, that the Rent Controller was entitled to fix the fair rent under Section 4 and had necessary jurisdiction to do

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

so. At the same time, having occupied the property until such time, the petitioner/tenant shall vacate the same. The petitioner is obligated to pay at least the contractual rate of rent of Rs.4,000/- per month.

11. The learned Senior Counsel on both sides are unable to immediately ascertain the actual default amount that would be liable to be paid by the petitioners, at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. Though I am allowing the revision petition setting aside the order fixing the fair rent for the tenanted premises, the petitioners are directed to clear the entire arrears of rent at the rate of contractual rate of Rs.4,000/- per month within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. 14.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Uma

CRP No. 5035 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI J. Uma Pre-Delivery Order in CRP No. 5035 of 2026 14.10.2026