Madras High Court
Charlin vs Palraj on 16 February, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date :16.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(NPD)(MD)Nos.1322,1323,1335 to 1337 and 1339 to
1341 and 1343 of 2019
CRP(MD).Nos.1322 of 2019:-
Charlin ... Petitioner in all CRPs
Vs
Palraj ...Respondent in CRP(MD).No.1322/2019
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed
under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and
decretal order dated 15.04.2019 made in R.C.A.No.15
of 2018 on the file of the Court of Rent Control
Appellate Authority, Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin
reversing the order dated 26.03.2018 of the Rent
Controller, Principal District Munsif Court,
Tuticorin in I.A.No.44 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.46 of
2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kadarkarai
For respondent : Mr.R.Alagumani
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been
filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair
and decretal order dated 15.04.2019 made in R.C.A.No.
15 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Rent Control
Appellate Authority, Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin
reversing the order dated 26.03.2018 of the Rent
Controller, Principal District Munsif Court,
Tuticorin in I.A.No.44 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.46 of
2016.
2. Since the issue involved in all Civil
Revision Petitions are one and the same, they are
taken up together and decided by a common order.
2.1. The short facts of the case are as
follows:-
2.2. The petitioner would aver among other
things that he is the owner of the certain schedule
mentioned properties therein. It is averred that the
respondents in the Civil Revision Petitions are the
tenants of the subject matter of the property in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
question. It is the case of the petitioner that
since May 2015, they refuse to pay rent to the
petitioner herein. In this regard, he sent a legal
notice to the respondents herein on 29.08.2016. But,
neither the tenants sent a reply nor rent to the
petitioner, which resulted filing I.A.No.44 of 2017
in R.C.O.P.No.46 of 2016 by the petitioner herein.
After contest, the Court below favoured with the
petitioner herein asking the respondents/tenants
herein either to pay rent or vacate the property in
question within the time stipulated. Aggrieved over
the same, the respondents herein filed R.C.A.No.46 of
2016 and the appellate court favoured with the
respondents herein. Therefore, the petitioner is
before this Court with these Civil Revision Petitions
for the relief stated supra.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
would contend that the Court below after perusing the
documents produced by the petitioner had allowed the
R.C.O.P.No.46 of 2016 but the appellate Court without
appreciating those documents produced by the
petitioner has simply reversed the judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Court below which is not sustainable in the eye of
law. Further, in order to drag on the proceedings,
the respondents colluded together and refused to pay
the rent to the petitioner. Hence, he prays for
allowing these Civil Revision Petitions.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents would only contend that the appellate
Court felt that the petitioner herein did not produce
the relevant documents to sustain the claim of the
petitioner and on that ground, the appellate Court
rightly reversed the findings of the Court below in
which no illegality nor infirmity can be found and
therefore, he prays for dismissing of these Civil
Revision Petitions.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the materials available on
record.
6. The crucial issue to be decided in this
case is whether the petitioner is the owner of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
subject matter of the properties. Perusal of record
shows that the petitioner marked 12 documents on his
side to prove that he is the owner of the properties
in question. The Court below culled out a point that
the subject matter of the property was derived from
his father. To rebut the claim of the petitioner, no
documents have been marked on the side of the
respondents herein. When the tenants were cross-
examined, they admitted that they did not pay tax to
the subject matter of the property; did not have
patta in the name of the tenants; no electricity
connection was obtained in their name and during
their cross-examination, they admitted that the
property in question did not belong to them.
Therefore, before drawing a conclusion that the Court
below sailed on the strength of the documents
produced by the petitioner and eventually, it came to
a conclusion that the respondents had purposely
refused to pay the rent and the petitioner is the
owner of the property. However, the appellate Court
did not appreciate the documents produced by the
petitioner herein and erred in allowing the claim of
the tenants herein by deviating the well-considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
judgment given by the Court below which is not
sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, these
Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be allowed.
7. For the foregoing reasons, all the Civil
Revision Petitions stand allowed and the order made
in I.A.No.44 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.46 of 2016 stand
confirmed. However, there will be no order as to
costs.
16.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
(1)The Appellate Authority,
Subordinate Judge,
Tuticorin.
(2)The Rent Controller,
Principal District Munsif Court,
Tuticorin
Copy to:-
The Section Officer,
V.R.Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
J.NISHA BANU, J
bala
CRP(NPD)(MD)Nos.1322,1323,1335 to 1337 and 1339 to
1341 and 1343 of 2019
16.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
