Madras High Court
CRP/1748/2026 of Usha Rani Vs Sanjeevi on 1 September 2026
CRP No. 1748 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-09-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 1748 of 2026
and CMP No.18140 and 7985 of 2026
1. Usha Rani
W/o Arul, No 27B, Pillaiyar Koil Street, Sekar Varma Nagar, New No 121, School Street, Periyar Nagar, Tiruttani Town and Tk, Tiruvallur Dist.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Sanjeevi
S/o Arumugam, No 65, Nehru Nagar,
Veerapuram Main Road, Vellanur, Chennai
600 062
Respondent(s)
Revision filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 27.02.2026 passed in E.P No.11 of 2025 in RLTOP No.1 of 2021 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruttani.
For Petitioner(s):
Dr.S.Padma
K.S.Shanmugapriya Ms.3662/2024
For Respondent(s):
M/s.E.Sathish Kumar
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
Registry is directed to remove the names of Mr.V.Karthikeyan,
CRP No. 1748 of 2026 Mr.S.Sivasubramani, Ms.M.Dharani and Mr.A.M.Navaneeth since the petitioner has already entered appearance through Dr.S.Padma by way of change of vakalat.
2. Heard Dr.S.Padma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.E.SathishKumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The revision petitioner challenges the order of delivery passed by the Rent Court in execution of a decree for possession that has been obtained by the respondent under Section 21(2)(a) of TNRRRLT Act, (Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that despite being brought to the notice of the executing Court that a statutory appeal has been preferred and the same is pending in RLTA No.1 of 2025 before the Rent Tribunal ( Sub Court, Tiruttani), the executing Court has proceeded to order delivery which has constrained the petitioner to come up with this revision petition.
5. Per contra, Mr.E.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would state that admittedly the order of eviction passed by the Rent
CRP No. 1748 of 2026 Court has not been stayed by the Rent Tribunal and hence there is no infirmity in the order of delivery passed by the executing Court. He would therefore pray for the dismissal of the revision petition.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
7. Considering the fact that R.L.T.A has been numbered and is pending in RLTA No.1 of 2025 before the Rent Tribunal (Sub Court, Tiruttani), I am inclined to dispose of the revision in the following manner:-’
(i) the order of delivery, which is under challenge, in the present revision petition shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(ii) The Sub Judge, Tiruttani (Rent Tribunal) shall dispose of RLTA No.1 of 2025 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(iii) Subject to the result of RLTA No.1 of 2025, it shall be open to the respondent to proceed with the execution petition.
CRP No. 1748 of 2026 P.B.BALAJI.,J sr
(iv) It is left open to both the parties to canvass all their objections and claims before the Rent Tribunal. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 01.09.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order CRP No. 1748 of 2026