CRP/197/2026 of S.RAVIRAJ Vs DEEPA RAJAKUMARI on 1 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

CRP.No.197 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner/tenant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2024 in RCA.No.3 of 2023, confirming the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.3 of 2015 dated 21.04.2023.

2. CRP.No.421 of 2026 is also filed by the tenant, who has similarly suffered concurrently before the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the learned Rent Controller.

3. Though the revision petitioners were represented by counsel and repeated adjournments were taken by their counsel and the matter was also listed under the caption ‘for orders’ on several occasions, today also there is no representation by the counsel for the petitioners. However, the petitioner in CRP.No.197 of 2026 appeared in person and stated that he has taken back the papers from the counsel and he and the other revision petitioner intend to engage a new counsel. I declined the request for any further adjournment, on the ground that several opportunities were already given to the petitioners to advance arguments in the revision petitions and even today, the revision petitions were listed only under the caption ‘for orders’. Hence, I proceeded to hear the arguments, which were advanced by the petitioner in CRP.No.197 of 2026.

4. The facts, in both the revision petitions, are common in nature. The respondent/landlady sought to vacate the petitioners, invoking Section 14(1)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, Act 18 of 1960, on the ground of bonafide requirement of the building for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction. The petitioner, party in person in CRP.No.197 of 2026 would state that the petitioners were willing to vacate, in compliance with concurrent orders of eviction passed against them, but however, since they have paid substantial advance and unless the advance is refunded, the petitioners are not obligated to surrender possession.

5. Per contra, Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady would firstly contend that the findings are concurrent and based on pleadings and evidence. The Courts have found that the requirement for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction was bonafide, honest and immediate as well, considering the relevant factors, namely the age and condition of the building, the sufficiency of funds at the hands of the respondent/landlady to demolish and put up a new construction and bonafide need of the premises for such purposes of demolition and reconstruction. He would therefore state that under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, this Court should refrain from interfering with such concurrent findings of fact, especially when there has been proper appreciation of evidence, in the light of the pleading of the parties.

6. Insofar as the argument of the petitioner in CRP.No.197 of 2026, learned counsel for the respondent/landlady contends that no advance is available at the hands of the respondent to be refunded to the petitioners. However, he would fairly state that if the petitioners are in possession to produce the original and genuine advance/security deposit receipts issued by the respondent/landlady, acknowledging the payment of alleged advance by the petitioners, then the respondent would certainly refund such advance, across delivery of possession by the petitioners.

7. In reply, Mr.S.Raviraj, the petitioner in CRP.No.197 of 2026 contends that the petitioners are searching for the original agreement, which records the factum of payment of advance and he would therefore state that if such original agreement or receipt, acknowledging payment of advance is produced before the petitioners vacate and hand over vacant possession, then the respondent without any protest, should be called upon to refund the said advance amount. The petitioner also sought for reasonable time to vacate and hand over tenanted premises.

8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced on either side.

9. The relevant factors to be considered in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, are as follows:

(i) Whether the requirement of the tenanted premises for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction is bonafide;

(ii) In assessing such bonafides, the landlady has to establish the age and condition of the building and also the factum of being possessed of sufficient funds to carry out such demolition and reconstruction; and

(iii) Whether necessary undertaking as mandated under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act has been given by the respondent/landlady.

10. Before the learned Rent Controller, the respondent/landlady has adduced oral and documentary evidence and clearly satisfied the requirements of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Though the petitioners contended that the building is in good condition and does not require any demolition and reconstruction, they have not been able to substantiate such a self serving claim.

The bald allegations that the eviction petition has been filed only to let out the premises on higher rent has also not been proved or established. The evidence on record has been assessed by the Rent Controller in a judicious manner and proper perspective. The Rent Controller, in my considered opinion, as rightly ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority independently has also assessed the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence on record and confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. In such view of the matter, I do not see any grounds warranting interference in revision.

11. With regard to refund of advance, certainly if the petitioners had paid any rental advance and subject to there being no default in payment of rents and other charges like electricity consumption charges and water charges, etc., as that may have been agreed between the parties and the petitioners vacating the premises, without any damage to the tenanted premises, then they are entitled to refund of such advance. Admittedly, even as on date, it is the contention of the petitioner/tenant in CRP.No.197 of 2026 that he is searching for the agreement/receipt to prove the factum of payment of advance. Therefore, admittedly, as on date, there is nothing on record to show that there is any excess advance lying at the hands of the respondent/landlady. In the light of the above, I am inclined to give suitable directions in this regard while dismissing the revision.

12. In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners/tenants shall have time till 31.12.2026 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the respective portions under their occupation. In the event of the petitioners being able to produce the original receipt or the original agreements, evidencing the fact that there has been an acknowledgement of payment of any advance amount by the respondent/landlady, then such advance as found in the said agreements, shall be refunded, subject to there being no other arrears payable by the petitioners on account of either rent or electricity consumption charges for having consumed the electricity service for their period of occupation. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA

P.B.BALAJI J. ATA CRP Nos. 197 & 421 of 2026 & CMP Nos. 2408 & 816 OF 2026 01-10-2026