Madras High Court
CRP/6928/2026 of R.Kamaraj Vs P.Kubendran on 11 November 2026
CRP.No.6928 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.6928 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012283242026}
and CMP.No.29799 of 2026
1. R.Kamaraj
2. R.Ettiraj
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. P.Kubendran
2. M.K.Kanmani
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.07.2026 passed in M.P.No.1 of 2026 in R.C.A.SR.No.9610 of 2025 against the fair and decreetal order passed in M.P.No.2 of 2021 in RCOP.No.169 of 2019 dated 06.01.2023 passed by the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and allow the above Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioners
: Mr.Ashok Menon
For Respondents
: Mr.E.Prabhu
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
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the application filed by the __________
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )
CRP.No.6928 of 2026 petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 1046 days in filing the rent control appeal.
2. The respondents/landlords filed a rent control eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.169 of 2019 on the ground of wilful default. Pending eviction petitioner, the respondents filed petition under Section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and the same was allowed on 06.01.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority during November-2025 with a delay of 1046 days. The said condone delay petition was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that when the Rent Controller passed an order in 11 (4) petition filed by the respondents, the subject premises was already sealed by the Corporation of Chennai on the complaint given by the respondents that the petitioners/tenants running a business without license. Since the premises was sealed and the petitioners were prevented from carrying on the business, the petitioners thought there was nothing to litigate and hence, the petitioners failed to challenge the order passed in Section 11(4) petition. Subsequently, the __________
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )
CRP.No.6928 of 2026 respondents filed a summary suit seeking recovery of arrears of rent in O.S.No.4110 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the said suit advised the petitioners to file an appeal challenging the order passed in Section 11 (4) petitioner. Only thereafter, the instant appeal has been filed with a delay. According the learned counsel for the petitioners, the delay had occurred not due to any negligence on the part of the petitioners and it was only due to the bonafide belief of the petitioners that there was nothing to litigate after the order passed by the Rent Controller in an application filed under Section 11(4).
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in the suit filed by the respondents seeking recovery of money, the 2nd petitioner herein remained exparte and the same was decreed against the 2nd petitioner. Subsequently, he filed an application to set aside the decree and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd petitioner filed a revision before this Court and the same was also dismissed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, there is no sufficient explanation on the part of the petitioner to condone the delay of 1046 days. __________
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )
CRP.No.6928 of 2026
6. It is seen from the additional typed set of papers filed by the petitioners that the suit in O.S.No.4110 of 2024 was decreed against the 2nd petitioner on 14.08.2024. The civil revision petition filed by the 2nd respondent was dismissed on 27.02.2026. Atleast after receipt of summons in the suit, the 2nd petitioner could have taken steps to file appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioners filed the present appeal along with condone delay petition only during December-2025. The petitioners have not explained the delay from August-2024 to December-2025. Therefore, the reason given by the petitioners regarding their bonafide belief is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 1046 days in filing the rent control appeal and the Appellate Authority rightly appreciated the same and dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. I do not find any error in the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm __________
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )
CRP.No.6928 of 2026 To
1. The VII Judge (FAC), Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. __________
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )
CRP.No.6928 of 2026 S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.6928 of 2026 and CMP.No.29799 of 2026 11-11-2026 __________
( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 01:28:34 pm )