CRP/4824/2026 of T.K.Mahendran Vs Savithiri on 1 September 2026

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Baskaran and Mr.S.Sanjay, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The revision petitioner is a tenant, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in an Eviction Petition filed by the respondents/landlords under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (in short 'Act'), for demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence found requirement of the respondents/landlords to be bonafide and ordered eviction. The revision petitioner/tenant challenged the said order of the eviction before the Appellate Authority, unsuccessfully and as against the concurrent findings, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. Mr.N.Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, primordially contends that there is total absence of pleading in the RCOP petition, with regard to the age and condition of the building, which is a fundamental requirement for establishing that the building is required for bonafide purposes for demolition and reconstruction. He would therefore states that the RCOP will have to be dismissed for lack of proper and necessary pleadings.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents would however state that though there is no specific reference with regard to the age and condition of the building in the petition, the respondents/landlords have adduced evidence and established that the requirement of bonafide and the same has been favourably considered by the Courts concurrently. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision without any merit.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Admittedly, as rightly pointed out by Mr.Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner in the RCOP petition, there is no whisper about the age and condition of the building. However, there is solitary sentence that the requirement for purposes of demolition and reconstruction is bonafide. Rent Control Proceedings are summary in nature and the test of strict pleadings as required before the Civil Court is not expected in Rent Control matters. However, it is necessary for the parties to understand the case on which eviction is sought for, so that the same is suitably defended by the tenants.

7. In the instant case, even in the absence of pleadings, the respondents have adduced evidence to satisfy the Rent Controller that the requirement for demolition and reconstruction is genuine, bonafide and immediate as required under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also, assessing the oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. Therefore, under Section 25 of the Act, the scope of interference is being very limited, especially with concurrent findings of the fact, I do not see any merits in the revision.

8. However, considering that the petitioner has been residing in the premises for the last several decades, Mr.Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for one year time to vacate and handover the possession. The said request is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords, stating that the eviction petition itself was filed 10 years back. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has been in occupation for the last almost 30 years, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner to vacate and handover the tenanted premises by 30.06.2027, subject to the petitioner filing an affidavit of undertaking that he would vacate and handover vacant possession to the respondents, peacefully without driving the respondents to proceed to get orders in the pending Execution Petition.

9. It is also brought to my notice that learned counsel on either side, it is a lumpsum lease and therefore there is no requirement on the part of the petitioner to pay monthly rents. However, across vacant possession being handed over by the petitioner to the respondents, the respondents are obligated to refund of Rs.2,45,000/-, which factum is also fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

10. In the light of the above, while dismissing the revision, the following directions are issued:-

(i) The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking within a period of two (2) weeks after serving an advance copy on the respondents, that he would peacefully vacate and handover vacant possession of the premises under his occupation, on or before 30.06.2027;

(ii) The respondents/landlords shall take a Demand Draft for Rs.2,45,000/- and attaching a photo copy of the original Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.2,45,000/-, favouring the petitioner, the same shall be sent to the petitioner/tenant on or before 15.06.2027. On receipt of the said Demand Draft, the petitioner shall make necessary arrangements to handover possession by 30.06.2027, across receipt of the original Demand Draft of Rs.2,45,000/-.

11. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

01.09.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To

1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Subordinate Judge, Udhagamandalam.

2. The Rent Controller, Udhagamandalam.

P.B.BALAJI, J. rkp CRP. No.4824 of 2026 and CMP. No.21058 of 2026 01.09.2026