CRP/4793/2026 of P.Radhakrishnan Vs N.Renuka Devi on 31 August 2026

COMMON ORDER

CRP No.4795 of 2026 has been filed to set aside the order passed in RLTA No.164 of 2024 dated 11.03.2026 by the learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and consequently dismiss the RLTOP No.1 of 2024, dated 23.08.2024 on the file of X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. CRP No.4793 of 2026 has been filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in RLTA No.164 of 2024 dated 11.03.2026 by the learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. CRP No.5188 of 2026 has been filed to set aside the order dated 11.03.2026 passed in IA No.1 of 2025 in RLTA No.164 of 2024 by the learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

4. The facts and circumstances of the case and the issues involved in all the civil revision petitions are one and the same and hence, this court passes a common order.

5. The petitioner, namely P.Radhakrishnan, s/o Pakkirisamy in CRP No.4793 and 4795 of 2026 is a tenant under one N.Renukadevi, who filed RLTOP No.1 of 2024 against the petitioner and other 8 persons, seeking delivery of vacant possession. The Rent Court allowed the said petition, directing the tenants, including the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession of the property, within a period of one month. Challenging the above order, the petitioner/ tenant filed appeal in RLTA No.164 of 2024.

6. Pending appeal, the petitioner/tenant also filed I.A.No.2 of 2026 seeking impleadment of S.V.Madhaprasad and E.Lalitha as 11th and 12th respondents in RLTA, since earlier lease deed stood in their name.

7. Likewise, the other tenants, namely R.Kesavaram, R.Ramanathan, R.Ramprakash and R.Ramprabhu, who are sons of one Ramkumar, s/o Pakkirisamy have filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking impleadment of one S.V.R.Ramprasad as 10th respondent in the appeal, since earlier lease deed stood in his name.

8. The Rent Tribunal has dismissed the appeal in RLTA No.164 of 2024, by order dated 11.03.2026, confirming the order passed by the Rent Court.

9. The Rent Tribunal, by order dated 11.03.2026, has also dismissed the impleading petitions in I.A.No.1 of 2025 and I.A.No.2 of 2026 holding that the landlady, namely N.Renuka Devi is the successor in interest of her father S.V.Ramakrishnan, as confirmed by the probate order of this court in T.O.S.No.2 of 2009 and hence, there is no legal foundation in the claim of impleadment of proposed respondents, namely, S.V.Madhaprasad, E.Lalitha and S.V.R.Ramprasad.

10. Challenging the dismissal of the appeal in RLTA No.164 of 2024 and I.A.No.2 of 2026, CRP Nos.4793 and 4795 of 2026 have been filed by the petitioner, namely P.Radhakrishnan. Further, challenging the dismissal of I.A.No.1 of 2025, the respondents 6 to 9 in RLTOP No.1 of 2024, have filed CRP No.5188 of 2026.

11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials documents on record.

12. The petitioner in CRP No.4795 of 2026 has filed an undertaking affidavit, dated 27.08.2026 before this court stating that he would vacate the cattle shed portion under his occupation, on or before 31.01.2027 (though corrected as 29.02.2027)

13. Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel for the landlady has raised several objections with regard to the affidavit of undertaking filed by the petitioner. Firstly, he would state that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late Pakkirisamy, who was inducted as a tenant. Therefore, he would further state that the other legal heirs, who are originally impleaded in the RLTOP and did not choose to challenge the order of eviction and the petitioner, who is one of the legal heirs alone has filed the affidavit of undertaking.

14. Since the eviction order passed by the Rent Court has not been challenged by the other legal heirs, who were arrayed as respondents in RLTOP proceedings, it is made clear that none of them will have right to obstruct the delivery of possession to the respondent/landlord.

15. It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlady that the petitioner/tenant had put up a door lock in the entrance of the property leading to the temple, behind which, the cattle portion is situated. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant strongly opposes the said contention and states that the petitioner has not put up any lock.

CRP No.4795 of 2026:

16. In view of the submission made by the counsel on either side and also the affidavit of undertaking filed by the petitioner, this court is inclined to dismiss the CRP No.4795 of 2026 with the following directions:-

i) The affidavit of undertaking filed by the petitioner is recorded and the petitioner is granted time till 31.01.2027 to vacate and hand over possession of the cattle shed portion, without driving the respondent/landlord to resort forcible possession through execution proceedings.

ii) It is open to the respondent/landlady to break open the lock that may be found and impeding access to the temple, to enable conduct of Vinayagar Chathurthi celebrations on 14.09.2026.

iii) No obstructions shall be caused by the revision petitioner or by his siblings, for enabling the respondent to have uninterrupted access to the temple.

iv) It also is made clear that since the siblings of the petitioner/tenant have not challenged the order of eviction passed by the Rent Court, they are not entitled to any audience and they shall not obstruct to the possession being handed over by the petitioner to the landlady/respondent, in terms of the affidavit of undertaking. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

CRP Nos.4793 and 5188 of 2026

17. As far as the CRP Nos.4793 and 5188 of 2026 are concerned, the same have been filed, challenging the dismissal of impleading certain proposed respondents in the RLTA proceedings. I find that those proposed respondents have nothing to do with the tenanted premises and their rights have also been foreclosed by this court in the testamentary proceedings in TOS No.2 of 2009, dated 04.03.2016. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Tribunal in I.A.No.1 and 2025 and I.A.No.2 of 2026, dated 11.03.2026 warranting interference in this revision.

18. Accordingly, CRP No.4793 and 5188 of 2026 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscelleneous petition is closed. 31-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To

1. The XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI, J. MST CRP Nos. 4793, 4795 and 5188 of 2026 31-08-2026