CRP(MD)/2592/2026 of N.Murugesan Vs G.Muralidharan on 21 September 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 12.08.2026 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in RLTOP.No.3 of 2025 on the file of the Rent Court Cum District Munsif, Theni.

2. The revision respondent is the landlord. He filed the above R.L.T.O.P.No.3 of 2025 before the Rent Court-cum-District Munsif, Theni, under Sections 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, seeking eviction of

CRP(MD) No. 2592 of 2026 the revision petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and the requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction of the building for his own use. Pending the same, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1 of 2026 seeking permission to file an additional counter. By order, dated 15.04.2026, the Rent Court-cum-District Munsif, Theni, dismissed the said petition by a docket order on the ground that there is no provision under the TNRRRLT Act for filing an additional counter and, hence, the petition was not maintainable and it devoid of merits. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application in I.A.No.2 of 2026 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property with the assistance of an Engineer to note down its physical features, and file a report. By order dated 12.08.2026, the Rent Court-cum-District Munsif, Theni, dismissed the said petition also.

3. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Rent Court-cum-District Munsif, Theni, the present petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had already filed the petition before obtaining an order of stay. However, the Trial Court passed the order in a hurried manner, and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. He further submitted that the contention of the respondent is that the building is in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, he wants to demolish and

CRP(MD) No. 2592 of 2026 reconstruct the same. According to the learned counsel, since the respondent claims that the building is in an unsound condition, the petitioner seeks to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and note down its physical features. Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is improper and perverse and is liable to be set aside.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

7. The relevant portion of the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2026 dated 12.08.2026, reads as follows:- “Today, respondent side has e-filed the petition at 12.44 p.m, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Section 35(1)(d) r/w 35(4) of TNRRR L and T Act. But, there is no such provision in existence permitting appointment of Advocate Commissioner in the concerned Act. Further, the application of the Civil Procedure Code is restrained and this Rent Court is not bound by that Code as per Sec.36(1) of TNRRR L and T Act. Such petition was filed by the respondent herein to collect evidence for his stand that the petitioner premised building is not too old and there is no reason for demolition and repair of that building. The existence of 60 year old building in the suit premises elucidated vide Ex.P.1 Sale deed dated 24.02.2016 is pertinent to be noted. ”

CRP(MD) No. 2592 of 2026

8. It is further revealed that, on the same day, i.e., on 12.08.2026, at 12:44 p.m., the petitioner filed a petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Section 35(1)(d) read with Section 35(4) of the TNRRR Landlords and Tenants Act. The Trial Court took the view that there is no provision for filing such a petition and that the petition was filed only with an intention to collect evidence. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the petition.

9. On a careful perusal of the records, it is seen that the R.L.T.O.P. was not filed solely on the ground that the building is in a dilapidated condition and, therefore, requires demolition and reconstruction. The main ground for seeking eviction of the petitioner is that he has not been paying the rent regularly. Further, the respondent requires the premises for his own use and occupation and intends to demolish and reconstruct the same. It is nowhere stated that the building is in a dilapidated condition that it poses a danger to the persons residing therein.

10. From the docket order, it is seen that the revision petitioner has, all along, failed to co-operate with the Trial Court, in conducting the trial and has intended to prolong the proceedings. He had not examined any of his witnesses, despite repeated adjournments granted by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the evidence on his side was closed. Once again, he approached this Court and

CRP(MD) No. 2592 of 2026 obtained an order permitting him to examine his witnesses. However, even thereafter, he did not come forward to examine any of his witnesses. When the Trial Court refused to grant a further adjournment despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner, on the same day, filed a petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. This clearly shows that his intention was only to prolong the proceedings. Having done so, he cannot now find fault with the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court finds no perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court dated 12.08.2026, and accordingly, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. In view of the above, the Rent Court-cum-District Munsif, Theni, is hereby directed to dispose of R.L.T.O.P.No.3 of 2025 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner fails to co-operate with the proceedings, the Trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law and complete the trial without granting unnecessary adjournments.

12. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 21-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DSS

CRP(MD) No. 2592 of 2026 R.POORNIMA, J. dss To

1. The Rent Court Cum District Munsif, Theni.

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. CRP(MD) No. 2592 of 2026 in CMP(MD)No.2592 of 202626 21-09-2026