CRP/5668/2026 of Elizabeth Varghese George Vs J.M.Ansari on 30 September 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 07.8.2026 made in RLTA.No.2 of 2026 on the file of the First Additional Judge, (FAC) II Additional City Civil Court at Chennai (for short, the Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirming the fair and decretal order dated 20.11.2025 passed in RLTOP.No.116 of 2025 on the file of the 16th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (for brevity, the Rent Controller) wherein the eviction petition filed by the respondents/landlords against the petitioner/tenant under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter called the Act), was allowed.

2. The respondents filed the eviction petition before the Rent Controller under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act on the ground that they were the owners of the subject property by virtue of 8 sale deeds dated 07.1.2022 (four sale deeds) and 07.12.2022 (four sale deeds), by means of which, they purchased 3,700 sq.ft. comprising of ground and first floors, in which, the petitioner’s father-in-law was a tenant; that subsequently, the petitioner was occupying the premises as a tenant; that the petitioner was residing in the first floor and was running a restaurant in the ground floor; that on the date of commencement of the Act or even thereafter, there was no tenancy agreement as contemplated under the Act in spite of the petitioner being informed about the change of ownership; that there were arrears of rent payable despite the order dated 07.8.2024 passed in RCOP.No.838 of 2016 on the file of the 12th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai; and that the subject premises was also in a highly dilapidated condition. Under such circumstances, the respondents/landlords sought for recovery of possession of the schedule premises.

3. Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant took a stand that her father-in-law was a tenant in the subject property; that after the demise of her father-in-law and also her husband, attempts were made to forcefully evict her; that pursuant to that, a complaint was given to the jurisdictional police; that a suit in O.S. No.4466 of 2016 on the file of the Fifth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court was filed by the petitioner/tenant against the erstwhile owners of the subject premises seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from evicting her unless and otherwise by due process of law; that the rents were paid promptly till February 2016; that thereafter, deliberately, the rents were not received; that earlier, RCOP.No.838 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner/tenant to deposit the rents into the Court; that pursuant to the orders passed by the 12th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 07.8.2024, the rents were also regularly deposited; that the petitioner/tenant was not aware about the subject property being purchased by the respondents/landlords; that there was no attornment of tenancy; that there was no landlord – tenant relationship between the parties; and that no notice was issued to the petitioner/tenant before the eviction petition was filed.

Ultimately, the petitioner/tenant sought for dismissal of the eviction petition.

4. The Rent Controller, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondents/landlords established the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the legal notice issued on 03.12.2024 terminating the tenancy and to hand over possession of the subject premises, was returned with the endorsement ‘unclaimed’ even though it was sent to the subject premises; that therefore, it was taken to be a valid service of notice; that there was no valid rental agreement between the parties; and that automatically, the provisions of Section 21(2)(a) of the Act would stand attracted. Consequently, the eviction petition was allowed on 20.11.2025 and the petitioner/tenant was directed to vacate the subject premises and hand over vacant possession within one month from 20.11.2025.

5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant filed RLTA.No.2 of 2026

before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who, on re-appreciation of the evidence and after considering the order passed by the Rent Controller, came to the conclusion that the jural relationship has been established and that the petitioner/tenant having failed to enter into a tenancy agreement, the ground under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act got automatically attracted. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also took into consideration the fact that the building was in a highly dilapidated condition and that the Greater Chennai Corporation already issued two issues (Ex.A.14 & Ex.A.15) to demolish the building since it was in a dangerous condition. Accordingly, by order dated 07.8.2026, the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant. Aggrieved by that, the above civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

6. When the matter came up for hearing on 15.9.2026, this Court, while hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, found that the order dated 20.11.2025 passed in RLTOP.No.116 of 2025 by the Rent Controller was incomplete and hence, a direction was issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant to file an additional typed set of papers containing the entire order and the matter was adjourned to 18.9.2026.

7. On 18.9.2026, when the matter came up for hearing, this Court passed the following order: “Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner made his submissions during the previous hearing and the matter was adjourned to enable the learned counsel to file additional typed set of papers containing the entire order passed in RLTOP No.116 of 2025. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel submitted that he is no longer appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is present before this Court in person and she seeks for sometime to engage another counsel.

2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that notice has been ordered and the matter is posted on 30.09.2026, before the execution court to record delivery.

3. In order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to engage another counsel and argue the case. Post this case on 25.09.2026 at 2.15 p.m. It is made clear that the petitioner has to engage a counsel by then and proceed further to argue the case, failing which, this Court will be constrained to go through the records and pass the final orders in this civil revision petition.”

8. The matter was again listed for hearing on 25.9.2026 and the petitioner, who was present in person before this Court, submitted that she would argue the case in person and she also filed the written arguments.

9. Heard the petitioner appearing in person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/caveator.

10. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the petitioner appearing in person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent/caveator and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the orders passed by the Authorities below.

11. At the outset, it is relevant to point out that even though the above civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

The Constitution of India, this Court is applying the test under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for brevity, the Rent Control Act).

12. The consideration of examination of the evidence by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act is confined to find out that the finding of facts recorded by the Court/Authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. The High Court can also interfere if the finding of fact recorded by the Court/ Authority below is perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misleading of evidence or is a miscarriage of justice. The High Court, in order to test the regularity/correctness/legality/propriety of the order impugned, should not exercise its power as an appellate power to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence, in which case, there is a possibility of the High Court giving a different finding on facts. The revisional power should not be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal.

13. Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramdoss Vs. K.Thangavelu [reported in 2000 (2) SCC 135].

14. A reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in V.M.Mohan Vs. Prabha Rajan Dwarka & Others [reported in 2006 (9) SCC 606].

15. A reference can also be made to the half-quoted judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rukminiamma Saradamma Vs. Kallyani Sulochana [reported in 1993 (1) SCC 499].

16. The last judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court that can be taken note of is in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh [reported in 2014 (9) SCC 78], which is a Constitution Bench judgment considering all the earlier judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

17. Keeping the above in mind, this Court will now scrutinize the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller.

18. The petitioner, who argued in person based on the written submissions, contended that she, along with her family, is in continuous possession of the subject property for more than 70 years; that there was no attornment of tenancy after the purchase of the subject premises by the respondents/landlords; that she is depositing the rent pursuant to the order dated 07.8.2024 in RCOP. No.838 of 2016; that she was denying the landlord – tenant relationship since there was no attornment of tenancy; that no notice was issued to her; that there was also a discrepancy in the description of the subject premises; and that therefore, the impugned orders passed by the both the Authorities below require the interference of this Court.

19. In so far as the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, the Rent Controller, apart from carefully analyzing the property that was purchased by the respondents, came to the conclusion that it was only the subject property that was purchased by the respondents under Ex.A6 to

Ex.A13; that therefore, the respondents attained the status of landlords and that they could certainly maintain the eviction petition.

20. In so far as the issues with regard to non service of notice and attornment of tenancy are concerned, the Rent Controller found that the legal notice dated 03.12.2024 marked as Ex.A.16 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant and directing her to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the subject property, was returned with the endorsement ‘unclaimed’. This notice was, admittedly, sent to the address of the subject premises. Hence, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Kumari Vs. Shailendra Kumar [reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 904], the Rent Controller rendered a finding that the said notice amounted to a valid service.

21. Having rendered the above finding, the Rent Controller went into the next issue with regard to the absence of a written rental agreement between the parties and came to the conclusion that on the mere absence of such an agreement or once there is no valid rental agreement, the provisions of Section 21(2)(a) of the Act would kick in and it would result in ordering eviction.

22. The Rent Control Appellate Authority once again considered (i) the entire evidence, (ii) the findings rendered by the Rent Controller and (iii) the grounds that were raised in the appeal and came to the conclusion that the jural relationship of landlord – tenant between the parties has been established; that since the building was in a highly dilapidated condition, the hotel business was stopped; that the petitioner/tenant was aware about the purchase of the subject property by the respondents/landlords and that since the petitioner/tenant failed to enter into a tenancy agreement in spite of issuance of the legal notice, it automatically resulted in ordering eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act.

23. Denial the title of the respondents/landlords by the petitioner/tenant is obviously mala fide since it has been established beyond cavil that the respondents/landlords purchased the subject property from the previous owner, who was recognized by the petitioner/tenant as the landlord. The grounds raised in the above civil revision petition are wholly unsustainable and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Authorities below. The same test that used to be applied under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act is applied by this Court in this case even while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of The Constitution of India.

24. In the light of the above discussions, the above civil revision petition is dismissed and the order dated 07.8.2026 passed in RLTA.No.2 of 2026 on the file of the First Additional Judge, (FAC) II Additional City Civil Court at Chennai confirming by the order dated 20.11.2025 passed in RLTOP.No.116 of 2025 on the file of the 16th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is sustained. There shall be a direction to the petitioner/tenant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the subject property to the respondents/landlords within two months from today. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. 30-09-2026

To

1. The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Registrar, Small Causes Court, Chennai. RS

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.5668 of 2026& CMP.No.24464 of 2026 30-09-2026