Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8965 Mad
Judgement Date : 27 April, 2022
O.S.A.No.111 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
O.S.A.No.111 of 2022
and C.M.P. No.7541 of 2022
R.V.Anupriya .. Appellant
v.
1.V.Prabha
2. C.Vijayakumar
3. M/s. Teckpak,
By Proprietor Rajan Babu
No.26, Kalyani Industrial Estate,
Athipattu,
Chennai - 600 058 .. Respondents
Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent and
Order 36 Rule 11 of Original Side Rules to set aside the fair and decreetal
order made in Application No.2716 of 2021 in C.S.No.37 of 2017 dated
09.09.2021.
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.111 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.D Veerasekaran
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
The appellant has filed the above Original Side Appeal
challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Application
No.2716 of 2021 and O.A.No.472 of 2021 in C.S.No.37 of 2017 dated
09.09.2021.
2. The appellant has filed the application in A. No.2716 of 2021
seeking for a direction to the 3rd respondent/4th defendant, who is a tenant
under the tenancy agreement, to renew the rental agreement dated
28.06.2017 or to vacate and handover the possession of “C” schedule
property to her as landlady, pending suit.
3. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed the suit in C.S.No.
37 of 2017 seeking for a declaration that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are
entitled to the beneficial enjoyment of the suit schedule “A” items 1 and
Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.No.111 of 2022
2 mentioned in the properties purchased by the 1st plaintiff in the name
of the 1st defendant/appellant or, in the alternative, to direct the 1st
defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- with quarterly rests and for
other reliefs.
4. The 1st respondent has questioned the title of the appellant in
the suit. In the said circumstances, the application filed by the appellant
before the learned single Judge seeking for renewal of the rental
agreement dated 28.06.2017 was rejected by the learned Single Judge on
the ground that the suit was ripe for trial.
5. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, remedy open to
the appellant is to approach the Rent Control Court and not file an
application in the Civil Suit seeking for renewal of the agreement or to
take possession of the leased out property. When there are specific
provisions available under the Rent Control Act, filing of the application
circumventing the said provisions cannot be entertained. The learned
Single Judge had rightly dismissed the application. We do not find any
merits in the Original Side Appeal. Accordingly, the Original Side
Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.No.111 of 2022
Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
27.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Note : Issue order copy on 29.04.2022 Rj
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.S.A.No.111 of 2022
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
Rj
O.S.A.No.111 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.7541 of 2022
27.04.2022
Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!