Madras High Court
CRP/6222/2026 of R.Murugan Vs Arul Raj Samuel and M.Allah Jacob on 30 September 2026
CRP No. 6222 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 6222 of 2026
and CMP. No.26889 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011533702026}
R.Murugan
S/o. Ramalingam,
First Floor, Old No.30,
New No.10, V.P.Colony, North Street,
Ayanavaram, Chennai 600 081.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Arul Raj Samuel and M.Allah Jacob
Both Sons of Manuel Packiaraja,
No.177/2, Mettu Street, Ayanavaram,
Chennai 600 023.
Rep. by its Manager and POA,
Daniel Jayakumar.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 passed in RLTOP No.115 of 2026 on the file of the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. C.R.Gokulvisvas
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the limited relief sought for in this revision petition, I am inclined to dispense with notice to the respondent.
CRP No. 6222 of 2026
2. The present revision petition is filed challenging the order of recovery of possession passed by the Rent Court in RLTOP No.115 of 2026, by order dated 30.06.2026. An appeal remedy is available before the Rent Tribunal, however, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the Registry has rightly objected to the maintainability of the revision and also put up a maintainability note.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would contend that the Rent Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter and that he is a lessee and therefore, if he submits himself to the jurisdiction of the Rent Court, then it would amount to conceding to the eviction petition filed by the respondent and he is not be in a position to putforth his defence effectively and he would also state that he was not given an opportunity to even file a counter statement.
4. However, on going through the records, in fact, the impugned order passed by the Rent Court, I find that a counter affidavit has been filed by the revision petitioner, where he pleads that the tenancy is oral and therefore, the Act is not applicable. Therefore, I am unable to entertain the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is clearly without any merit and wholly unsustainable. The objections of the Registry with regard to maintainability is upheld. However, since the revision petitioner has approached
CRP No. 6222 of 2026
this Court instead of filing an Appeal before the Rent Tribunal, if a Regular Appeal is filed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, then the Rent Tribunal shall number the said Appeal and shall proceed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law.
5. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Judge, XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
CRP No. 6222 of 2026
P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP CRP No. 6222 of 2026 and CMP. No.26889 of 2026 30-09-2026