CRP/3375/2026 of R.K.Muthuramalingam Vs R.Yuvraja on 28 September 2026

ORDER

The tenant is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the Rent Tribunal reversing the dismissal of RLTOP No.3/2024. The respondent is the landlord who approached the Rent Court seeking recovery of possession under Section 21(2)(a) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. After enquiry, the Rent Court found that the respondent/landlord has not established jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent pertaining to any building or super-structure and proceeded to dismiss RCTOP. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the RLTOP, the respondent/landlord moved the Rent Tribunal in RLTA No.11 of 2025. The Rent Tribunal, however, reversed the order of dismissal of RLTOP and ordered eviction, as against which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. Heard, Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.K.V.Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner/ tenant taking me through the averments in the RLTOP pleadings as well as the admission of PW1 in the witness box would contend that there is admittedly no lease of any building or superstructure which is a sine qua non for numbering the application under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of

Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. If it is the case of lease of vacant site, the Forum for seeking recovery of possession will be the competent Civil Court and not the Special Court/Tribunal constituted under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. He would also point out that a suit has already been filed in O.S.No.249 of 2024 for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 24.08.2018. It is also brought to my notice that in the said suit, the respondent has taken out an application for sending the agreement of sale for examination of a Forensic expert. He would also bring to my notice that in the suit, the sale agreement schedule reflects only vacant land.

4. Per contra, Mr.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would state that the entire property has been sub-divided into two portions and one portion is retained by the respondent/landlord with building for residential use and the remaining portion was let out to the tenant for non-residential purpose. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, a shed was put up only by the respondent/landlord and the contention of the petitioner that vacant land was let out is not correct. Learned counsel also disputed the genuineness of the alleged agreement of sale which speaks of lease of vacant land and also an alleged sale agreement between the petitioner and the respondent. Though the learned counsel, Mr.Rajendrakumar, states that the building had been assessed in the name of the respondent/

landlord and he has been paying taxes, I do not find any documentary evidence adduced by the respondent before the rent Court. In fact, when the petitioner/ tenant, at the earliest instance, has set up title for the building in himself by contending that the tenant had put up the shed, the petitioner, when approaching the Rent Court ought to have produced the property tax receipt to evidence the fact that he is the owner of the super structure and at least then a presumption could have been raised that the lease was in respect of not only land but also land and building. Mere factum of payment of rent will not raise a presumption that the lease is not in respect of the land and building.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a lessee, which factum is not in dispute even by the petitioner. The only dispute is with regard to the nature of lease namely, whether it was a lease of vacant land alone or vacant land together with the shed. In fact, I find that the findings rendered by the rent Court are justified. Unfortunately, the Rent Tribunal has focussed only on the aspect whether there is tenancy between the parties. Having found that the tenancy is oral and there is no written agreement produced on either side, it has proceeded to accept the case of the respondent/landlord. The very approach of the Rent Tribunal is erroneous and fallacious.

6. When the petitioner/tenant has set up a specific defence that vacant land was subject matter of the lease, then the Rent Court ought to have given a finding as to whether the tenancy was in respect of vacant land alone or in respect of land as well as superstructure. The said exercise has unfortunately not been done by the Rent Tribunal, despite the same having diligently followed by the Rent Court. In fact, PW1 even in his cross examination has admitted to the fact that vacant land was let out and it was the petitioner/tenant who put up superstructure and obtained electricity service connection at his cost.

7. Though the Rent Tribunal has not applied the actual test that should have been adopted in the present case, in view of the fact that the petitioner does not dispute the factum of being a lessee only, subject to the outcome of the suit for specific performance, the petitioner can only be a lessee at the end of the day.

8. In the light of the above and peculiar facts and circumstances narrated herein above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the following observations.

(i) The order of eviction passed by the Rent Tribunal is confirmed. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to continue to remain in possession, till such time O.S.No.249/2024 is disposed of on merits.

(ii) The Trial Court shall dispose of the said suit for specific performance on or before 31.01.2027 on merits and in accordance with law.

9. It is needless to state that in the event of the revision petitioner succeeding in the said suit, he would become entitled to sale deed and consequently, ownership. Therefore, the order of eviction that is confirmed in the revision will become wholly ineffective. However, in the event of the suit being dismissed, the respondent shall be entitled to put the decree to execution for recovery of possession.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent agreed that the monthly rent that is payable by the petitioner is Rs.18,320/-. Both the parties agreed that till March, 2026, the rental arrears had been deposited to the credit of RLTOP. The respondent is at liberty to withdraw the said amount. Insofar as the rent payable from March 2026, the petitioner shall directly pay the same to the respondent every month without any default.

11. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsi

P.B.BALAJI, J. vsi CRP No. 3375 of 2026 28-09-2026