CRP(MD)/2692/2026 of A. Rajendran Asari Vs K. Sellammal on 30 September 2026

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 12.12.2025 passed in IA.No.555 of 2015 in RCOP.No.123 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent is the landlord’s Power of Attorney Agent. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 10 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1961 with a prayer to adjudicate whether the petitioner's denial of title of the respondent in respect of the petition mentioned property is bonafide and if the Rent Controller records a finding to that effect direct the respondent to seek her remedy before the competent civil Court of Law.

3. The respondent filed the main petition for eviction against the petitioner in respect of the petition mentioned property on the ground of wilful default. According to the petitioner, the respondent had already sold the property to one Maheshwari, who in turn sold the said property in favour of the petitioner and therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )

C.R.P(MD)No.2692 of 2026 further submits that the respondent has no right, title or interest in the petition mentioned property and as such, the respondent cannot maintain the eviction petition against the petitioner. The denial of respondent’s title by the petitioner is a bonafide and is supported by documentary evidence.

4. The respondent filed a counter by disputing the claim of the petitioner and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that though the petitioner claimed that he is the owner of the property, he failed to file any documentary evidence, such as a sale deed, agreement of sale, patta transfer, encumbrance certificate, revenue record or tax receipt, to substantiate the alleged transactions. The petitioner’s claim rests on mere allegations. Unsupported by any proof and cannot override the respondent’s established claim of title and therefore, dismissed the petition.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the original owner Sellammal sold the property through an unregistered sale deed in favor of one Maheshwari. The said Maheshwari sold the property in favour of the petitioner through an unregistered sale deed. However, it is true that

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )

C.R.P(MD)No.2692 of 2026 though the petitioner claimed title through an unregistered document without any proof, he cannot argue the case by relying upon an unregistered sale deed and the petitioner has not even produced any document of title before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition by stating that the Court cannot entertain any application by mere oral submission made by the petitioner. This Court does not find any perverse in the order passed by the trial Court and hence, this civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all those claims before the trial Court at the time of final hearing.

30.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )

C.R.P(MD)No.2692 of 2026 To The III Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli.

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )

C.R.P(MD)No.2692 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,

J.

RM C.R.P(MD)No.2692 of 2026 30.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 08/10/2026 04:22:22 pm )