CRP(MD)/2720/2026 of MEENA Vs Kandhakumar on 12 November 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2024 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, whereby the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner against the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, was dismissed, thereby confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

2. The petitioner herein is the tenant, and the respondent herein is the landlord. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent/landlord instituted an eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No. 6 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the grounds of wilful default in the payment of rent, unauthorised construction, and subletting of the demised premises.

3. The Rent Controller rejected the ground of subletting but ordered eviction on the grounds of wilful default and unauthorised construction. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.3 of 2024 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam. However, the Appellate

Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

4. The revision petitioner contends that both the authorities below failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record and arrived at erroneous findings with regard to the alleged wilful default in the payment of rent and the alleged unauthorised construction. The petitioner therefore submits that the concurrent findings of the authorities below are contrary to the evidence on record and warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

5. The Rent Control Appellate Authority placed reliance upon the admission made by the petitioner that the rent for a period of 45 months had been paid in a lump sum. However, the mere payment of accumulated rent in a lump sum ought not, by itself, to have been construed as wilful default without properly considering the circumstances surrounding such payment and the evidence available on record. The Appellate Authority failed to properly appreciate the distinction between delayed payment of rent and wilful default in the payment of rent.

6. With regard to the alleged unauthorised construction, the Appellate Authority misconstrued the nature of the work carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner's specific contention was that he had merely replaced the old roofing sheets with new tin sheets, which, according to him, did not amount to unauthorised construction. The authorities below failed to properly consider the nature and extent of the work undertaken.

7. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner was not the owner of the property and, on that basis, sought appropriate relief against the impugned order. It was therefore prayed that the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority be set aside and that the eviction proceedings be dismissed, as warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. On the other hand, the respondent/landlord contended that the petitioner/tenant became a tenant in respect of the petition-mentioned property with effect from 01.10.2014 and that a rental agreement was entered into between the parties on 27.10.2014. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.8,100/- for the period from 01.10.2014 to 30.09.2015, Rs.8,600/- for the period from 01.10.2015 to 30.09.2016, and Rs.9,100/- for the period from 01.10.2016

to 30.09.2017. The petitioner also agreed to pay the monthly rent on or before the fifth day of every English calendar month.

9. The respondent further contended that the petitioner was permitted to install a weighing machine in the petition-mentioned property but was expressly prohibited from demolishing or reconstructing the building without the landlord's consent. According to the respondent, the petitioner committed wilful default in the payment of rent. The rent due up to 31.07.2016, amounting to Rs.51,600/-, was allegedly paid only on 03.11.2016. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner was in arrears of rent for the period from January 2019 to June 2019, amounting to Rs.60,600/-, which was stated to have remained unpaid.

10. The respondent further alleged that the petitioner had unauthorisedly constructed a shed adjacent to the existing reinforced cement concrete (RCC) building without obtaining the landlord's permission. In this regard, the respondent issued a notice dated 24.07.2015, calling upon the petitioner not to sublet the premises. The respondent also alleged that the petitioner had sublet the premises to various persons. According to the respondent, the petitioner failed to send any reply to the said notice.

11. Upon hearing both parties and considering the materials placed on record, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No.3 of 2024 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

12. The first appellate Court framed the following points for consideration :

1. Whether the appellant is liable to be evicted on the ground that he has not paid the rent ?

2. Whether they have constructed a new building in the suit premises ?

3. Whether they are subletting the premises to third party ?

13. During cross-examination, one Seenivasan, who was examined as R.W.1, admitted that he used to pay the rent for a period of four to five months at a time rather than paying the rent every month. On the basis of the said admission, the learned Rent Control Appellate

Authority arrived at the conclusion that the tenant had not been paying the rent regularly on a monthly basis.

14. Further, when the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the rent for the preceding year had been paid only in the month of December. This submission further indicated that the tenant had not been paying the rent regularly every month in accordance with the agreed terms of tenancy. Taking into consideration the admission made by the tenant during cross-examination and the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Rent Controller concluded that the tenant had failed to pay the rent regularly and that it amounts to default in payment of rent.

15. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the tenant had paid the rent up to December 2025, but had not paid the rent from January 2026 onwards. However, the learned counsel stated that the tenant was ready and willing to pay the outstanding rent. This submission indicates that the rent subsequent to December 2025 remained unpaid as on the date of hearing, thereby supporting the contention that the tenant was in arrears of rent.

16. With regard to the ground of subletting, the Rent Control Appellate Authority rejected the said ground, and the landlord had not preferred any appeal challenging that finding. It was further admitted that the tenant had renovated the demised premises without obtaining the prior permission or consent of the landlord. The terms of the tenancy specifically prohibited the tenant from carrying out repairs or renovations without the landlord's consent. Therefore, even if the work undertaken by the tenant was described as renovation, the tenant was required to establish that the same had been carried out in accordance with the terms of the tenancy.

17. On consideration of the materials available on record, the findings of the Rent Controller, as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, do not disclose any perversity warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, and the orders passed by the authorities below are liable to be confirmed.

18. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed and the orders passed by the authorities below are hereby confirmed. The revision petitioner/tenant is directed to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition-mentioned premises to the respondent/landlord within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RM To

1. The Section Officer VR Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

2. The Rent Control Appellate Tribunal / Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam

3. The Principal District Munsif, Kumbakonam

R.POORNIMA, J. RM CRP(MD) No. 2720 of 2026 AND CMP(MD) No. 13989 of 2026 12-11-2026