Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Geetha Kuruvilla @ vs K.Selvaraj
2023 Latest Caselaw 9735 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9735 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 August, 2023

Madras High Court
Geetha Kuruvilla @ vs K.Selvaraj on 7 August, 2023
                                                                                C.R.P.(NPD).No.2703 of 2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED: 07.08.2023

                                                         CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

                                                C.R.P.(NPD).No.2703 of 2023
                                                and C.M.P.No.16672 of 2023
                   Geetha Kuruvilla @
                   Geetha Susan                                                            ... Petitioner
                                                             Vs.

                   K.Selvaraj                                                           ... Respondent

                   PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil
                   Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the judgment and
                   decree passed in R.C.A.No.65 of 2018 dated 01.08.2022 by the learned Rent
                   Control Appellate Authority Cum Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore confirming the
                   fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.138 of 2011 dated 13.02.2018 by
                   the learned Rent Controller Cum I - Additional District Munsif at Coimbatore.

                                    For Petitioner      : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram

                                                        ORDER

The Revision Petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord in

the R.C.O.P.

2. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.138 of 2011 under Section

10(2) (iii), 10(3)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2017

to evict the Revision Petitioner from the petition schedule mentioned property on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2703 of 2023

the ground of own use and occupation. Before the Court below the respondent

examined himself as P.W.1 and the Revision Petitioner was examined as R.W.1

and Exhibits P1 to P6 were marked. After pursing the records, the Court below

allowed the petition vide its order dated 13.02.2018, directing the Revision

Petitioner to vacate the petition schedule mentioned premises and hand over the

possession of the petition mentioned property to the landlord within a period of

two months.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the Revision Petitioner preferred an

appeal in R.C.A.No.65 of 2018 before the Principal Subordinate Judge,

Coimbatore under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, 2017, praying to set aside the order of the Rent Controller in

R.C.O.P.138 of 2011, dated 13.02.2018. After scrutinising the records, the

learned Judge had dismissed the said appeal vide his order dated 01.08.2022,

directing the Revision Petitioner to vacate the petition mentioned premises and

hand over the same to the respondent/landlord. Challenging the same, the

Revision Petitioner has come forward with the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2703 of 2023

5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Revision Petitioner was

a tenant under the respondent/landlord since 01.03.1999, on the basis of the oral

agreement. She has paid a sum of Rs.2,300/- per month as rent for occupying the

petition mentioned property. The respondent's son was doing higher studies in

Coimbatore and after completion of his higher studies, he sought to get placement

for a better job. Therefore, the respondent/landlord required the petition

mentioned property for his own need and occupation.

6. On the other hand, the Revision Petitioner is a statutory tenant under

the respondent/landlord since 1999 and he was regularly paying the rents. But the

landlord has filed the R.C.O.P for vacating the Revision Petitioner from the

petition mentioned property. The contention of the Revision Petitioner is that the

said building got damaged and it is in a dilapidated condition. Though the

respondent has not let-in any documentary evidence to prove that his son was

looking for a job in Coimbatore and that the Revision Petitioner proved through

the documentary evidence his desire to settle in Coimbatore.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that

there was a rental agreement entered into between the parties in respect of the

petition schedule mentioned property. There was no dispute between the Revision

Petitioner regarding the quantum of the rent and towards the arrears of rent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2703 of 2023

According to the respondent/landlord he was working as a officer in a banking

sector and now he retired from service. According to the Revision Petitioner, at

the time of filing of R.C.O.P., he was aged about 65 years and she was working in

a export company located in Tiruppur. During the course of the cross-examination

the respondent, the Revision Petitioner was examined as R.W.1 in the R.C.O.P

proceedings before the Rent Controller. The Revision Petitioner had admitted that

she was travelling to and fro from Coimbatore to Tiruppur.

8. On further perusal of records, it reveals that there is no dispute

between the Revision Petitioner and the respondent regarding their relationship as

landlord and tenant. No evidence have been adduced so as to show that the

landlord is having other properties in Coimbatore. Moreover, in her chief evidence

and proof affidavit in para 4, she had deposed that the landlord is not related to

Coimbatore and purchased the property as an investment.

9. Per contra the landlord has proved his case that he needs the petition

scheduled mentioned property for his own use and occupation to settle down for

better opportunities for his son. Even though the report of the Advocate

Commissioner have not been marked as one of the exhibits in the R.C.O.P

proceedings, the report of the Advocate Commissioner shows and confirms the

contentions of the landlord that the building is required for repair work and for his

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2703 of 2023

own use and occupation. Hence, there is no illegality and irregularity in the order

passed.

10. In view of the above discussions, the Revision Petitioner is directed

to vacate the petition mentioned property on or before 30.11.2023, failing which

the respondent/landlord is at liberty to evict the Revision Petitioner with the help

of the Police Officials. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition

is closed.

07.08.2023

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order

gba

To

1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority Cum Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore

2. The Additional District Munsif -I, Coimbatore.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2703 of 2023

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN., J.

gba

C.R.P.(NPD).No.2703 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.16672 of 2023

07.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter