Madras High Court
CRP/2311/2026 of Chintya Vs T. Rajendiran on 28 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-09-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 2311 of 2026 and CMP No. 9983 of 2026
1. Chintya
No.25, 1st Floor, Sir Theagaraya Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.
2. Prema Ajith
No.25, Sir Theagaraya Road, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017
Petitioners
Vs
1. T. Rajendiran
No.88, HIG, 4th Main Road, Nolambur,
Mogappair West, Chennai-600 037.
2.D. Manohar
No.88, HIG, 4th Main Road, Nolambur,
Mogappair West Chennai 037.
3.Sudarshan Chits (India) Limited
Rep by its Authorized signatory No.25, 2nd Floor, Sir Theagaraya Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 017.
4.Sudarshan Trading Company Ltd.,
No.25, 2nd Floor, Sir Theagaraya Road, T.
Nagar, Chennai 017.
Respondents
Revision filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 08.04.2026 made in EP No.1152 of 2025 in RLTOP No.96 of 2024 on the file of XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Petitioners
Mr.M.Ashwin Kumar
For Respondents:
Mr.K.Manikandan
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
In compliance with the order dated 25.9.2026, the petitioners have handed over possession. The respondents/landlords are at liberty to change the locks. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice that revision was filed challenging the order of delivery granted in the execution petition in EP No.1152 of 2025 pending RLTA No 96 of 2024 and this Court has granted interim stay of the execution proceedings on 17.04.2026 and subsequently, by order dated 11.06.2026, this Court extended the interim order the disposal of RLTA No.96 of 2024. Subsequently, I am informed that the respondents/landlords, while moving for recovery of possession against the ground floor tenant, against whom, an order of eviction has become final upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, had high handedly attempted to dispossess the revision petitioners from the first, second and third floor. It is only under such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioners have been forced to surrender possession. He would also request the Court to look into the videos which have been recorded at the time of such high handed attempts made by the respondents/landlords.
2. Considering the scope of the revision petition and admitted fact that the petitioners have vacated and surrendered vacant possession, I do not see any necessity to go into those facts at this stage. It is suffice to record the factum of possession being handed over to the respondents/landlords, however, reserving the liberty to the revision petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court seeking damages for compensation, if so advised, for the acts of high handed and illegal dispossession of the petitioners from the premises.
3. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.09.2026 Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order sr To The XV Small Causes Court, Chennai
P.B.BALAJI.,J sr CRP No. 2311 of 2026 28.09.2026