Madras High Court
CRP/2996/2025 of A.PRABHU Vs S.VALLIYAPPAN on 23 September 2026
CRP No. 2996 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 2996 of 2025
and CMP. No.16829 of 2025
CNR: {HCMA011133202025}
A.Prabhu
S/o. Allagappan, Managing Partner, P.R.P. Papers, No.52, Kanthappa Chetti Street, Chennai - 001.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
S.Valliyappan
S/o. M.PR. Senthilnathan Chettiyar, No.19/4, Stringer Street, Chennai - 108.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the XVI
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in RLTA No.4 of 2025.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.R.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent(s):
Mr.B.Ullasavelan
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
The revision petitioner is the tenant, aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Rent Court in RLTOP No.421 of 2021, and confirmed by the Rent Tribunal, RLTA. No.4 of 2025, filed the present revision petition.
2. Admittedly, I do not find any grounds warranting interference in revision. The Rent Court and also the Rent Tribunal have on facts ascertained
CRP No. 2996 of 2025
that their existent jural relationship of landlord and tenant and there has been been failure to enter into a tenancy agreement under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act (TNRRRLT Act), 2017. Hence, I do not see any merit or scope of interference in the revision.
3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Sathish Kumar, states that the petitioner has already purchased a property and is in the process of moving into the same and for such purpose, he requires six weeks time. Insofar as rental arrears, according to Mr.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, he is not in any arrears and during the period of Covid, a portion of the original tenanted premises was surrendered and rent was reduced from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.55,000/- and the security deposit of Rs.8,50,000/- was also paid at the time of the inception of tenancy. According to Mr.Sathish Kumar, reduced rents at the rate of Rs.55,000/- have already been adjusted from Rs.8,50,000/-, security deposit and no dues are pending as on date and it is only the landlord who will have to refund excess amount.
4. However, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Ullasavelan, states that the petitioner has not paid any rents post the reduced area being occupied by him and the entire rents at the rate of Rs.55,000/- has been adjusted from Rs.8,50,000/- security deposit, which has now reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-. It
CRP No. 2996 of 2025
is however a matter of calculation which can be worked out in black and white and hence, I do not see any requirement to pass any directions with regard to payments of rents and refund of advance, if any. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking that he will vacate and handover vacant possession on or before 16.11.2026. The affidavit of undertaking, after serving the learned counsel for the respondent shall be filed before the Registry by 28.09.2026.
5. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. 23-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To
1. The Judge, XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The Judge, XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
CRP No. 2996 of 2025
P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP CRP No. 2996 of 2025 and CMP. No.16829 of 2025 23-09-2026