Madras High Court

CRP/4635/2026 of K.V.Babu Vs K.P.George on 14 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

CRP No. 4635 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-08-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP No. 4635 of 2026

and CMP.No.20363 of 2026

K.V.Babu

S/o. Varghese

No.95, Ashok Nagar West

Big Street,

Kavundampalayam

Coimbatore

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

K.P.George

S/o. K.C.Paul

Rep by his Power Agent Shiny George

No.9, Subhashree Illam

Pongiammal Nagar

Kavundampalayam

Coimbatore 641 030

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, pleased to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore in I.A No.4 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P No.108 /2020.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.C.Karl Marx

For Respondent(s):

Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan

CRP No. 4635 of 2026

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

ORDER

Heard Mr.Karl Marx, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The revision petitioner is alleged to be a tenant and proceedings were initiated by the respondent against the petitioner in RLTOP.No.108 of 2020 before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore. The parties are closely related and the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the respondent land lord (sister's husband).

3. According to the respondent, the petitioner is a tenant under him and there has been a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement in terms of Section 4

(2) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, and in order to recover the possession, invoking Section 21 (1) (2)

(a) the respondent filed the said RLTOP No.108 of 2020. The said RLTOP was decided ex-parte after appearance of the petitioner, noticing that despite sufficient opportunity, PW1 was not cross examined. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order in the RLTOP along with an application in IA.No.2 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay of 490 days. The said Interlocutory Application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 151 of CPC was enquired into and finding sufficient cause, the Rent Court condoned the delay, by order dated 10.10.2025. The said order in

CRP No. 4635 of 2026

I.A.No.2 of 2025 has not been challenged by the respondent/landlord.

4. I find that it is on the very same set of facts, both the applications for condonation of delay, as well as the application to set aside the ex-parte order of the eviction, were originally filed. In such circumstances, the Rent Court ought to have allowed the consequential application to set aside the ex-parte order and proceeded to dispose of the RLTOP on merits. Unfortunately, the Rent Court has virtually reviewed its own order in the condone delay application and by dismissing the setting aside application.

5. Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan, learned counsel for the respondent states that the eviction order was passed way back in January 2024, and these applications have been filed only to protract the proceedings and he would therefore state that, even in the event of this Court exercising discretion in favour of the petitioner, suitable directions may be given to the Rent Court to dispose of the RLTOP expeditiously.

6. For the reasons already discussed herein above, when the Rent Court had condoned the delay of 490 days in filing the application to set aside the ex- parte order dated 19.01.2024, the Court should have liberally construed the application to set aside the ex-parte order. Unfortunately, as I find from the impugned order, the reasons assigned by the Rent Court are virtually amounting

CRP No. 4635 of 2026

to reviewing the earlier order in IA.No.2 of 2025 and the same is not permissible, when the same set of facts form the basis for both the applications for condonation of delay as well as the application to set aside the ex-parte order.

7. I am inclined to set aside the order of dismissal of I.A.No.4 of 2025 in RLTOP.No.108 of 2020 and the ex-parte order in RLTOP.No.108 of 2020 dated 16.07.2026 is set aside. Considering the fact that the ex-parte order came to be passed only for non cross examination of PW1, I am inclined to direct the petitioner to cross examine PW1, and such examination shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of respondent choosing to lead any evidence, a window of two weeks shall be afforded to the respondent to lead oral and documentary evidence. Thereafter, the Rent Court shall enquire into the matter and dispose of the RLTOP.No.108 of 2020 within a period of four weeks thereafter.

8. With the above observations and direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 14-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order DPQ

CRP No. 4635 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI, J. DPQ To The 1st Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore CRP No. 4635 of 2026 and CMP.No.20363 of 2026 14-08-2026

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead