Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Devadoss Reddian (Since ... vs S.Mohamed Ali
2023 Latest Caselaw 9860 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9860 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 August, 2023

Madras High Court
Devadoss Reddian (Since ... vs S.Mohamed Ali on 8 August, 2023
                                                                             CRP. No.3811 of 2019




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED:      08.08.2023

                                                    CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                              CRP. No. 3811 of 2019

                     Devadoss Reddian (Since deceased)
                     by legal representative
                     D.Sugumar
                     Proprietor
                     B.R.R. Lorry Service
                     No.1, (Old Nos. 35 & 36),
                     Chinna Thambi Street,
                     Chennai 600 001.
                                                                       ...Petitioner
                                                        Vs.
                     1.S.Mohamed Ali
                     2.Amroj Beevi
                     3.M.Syed Ismail
                     4.M.Syed Rafique
                     5.Zuvaria(minor)
                     Rep by Natural
                     Guardian S.Mohammed Ali


                                                     ...Respondents.

                     PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25(1) of The
                     Tamil Nadu Buildings (Leased & Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, to set aside


                     1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     CRP. No.3811 of 2019

                     the judgment and decree order dated 04.09.2019 made in R.C.A 408 of 2017
                     dated 04.09.2019 on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai,
                     confirming the order of decree order of eviction made in R.C.O.P 2372 of
                     2008 dated 28.03.2017, on the file of XIV Court of Small Causes (Rent
                     Cotroller) Chennai.


                                        For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thiagarajan
                                        For Respondents : Mr.M.Saravana Kumar


                                                              ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree order

dated 04.09.2019 passed by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes,

Chennai, in R.C.A 408 of 2017 by confirming the order of XIV Court of

Small Causes (Rent Cotroller) Chennai, in R.C.O.P 2372 of 2008 dated

28.03.2017.

2. Originally RCOP No. 2372 of 2008 has been filed by the

respondent herein in order to evict the petitioner herein from the premises

bearing Door No. 1 (old No. 35 & 36), Chinna Thambi Street, Chennai –

600 001. For the sake of convenience the petitioner herein referred as tenant

and the respondents herein are referred as land lord. The contention of the

land lord before the Court below is that they have filed Fair rent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3811 of 2019

proceedings against the tenant in RCOP No. 2043 of 2003, while pending

proceedings the land lords filed CRP No. 2639 of 2007 and the respondents

filed CRP Nos. 2478 and 2479 of 2007 before this Court. Thereafter, the

said CRP proceedings were ended up in compromise and rent was fixed as

Rs.4,750/-. Further the land lord stated that the above said premises is in

dilapidated condition which is aged about more than 75 years. Hence the

land lords wants to reconstruct the building according to their plans and

scheme. Further, the land lords have sufficient means to construct the

building. Hence he prays the Court to vacate the tenant from the above said

premises.

3. On the other side, the tenant denied the age of the premises and

also stated that premises is in stable condition and also stated that the land

lords have no means to put up new construction. Further, with a view to

evict the tenant the land lord filed the rent control proceedings. Hence he

prays to dismiss the rent control proceedings.

4. After hearing the submissions on either side, the Rent Controller

allowed the petition in favour of the land lord. Aggrieved over the same, the

tenant preferred an appeal before VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes,

Chennai, which independently analysed the facts and circumstances of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3811 of 2019

case and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the concurrent findings the

tenant preferred this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the court below

failed to appreciate the fact that age of the building was not been proved by

the land lord with material evidence, in spite of that the order of eviction

was granted in favour of the land lord as such is totally unfair and liable to

be set aside. Further, he submitted that the land lord bound to prove the age

of the building with qualified engineer but they failed to do so. Hence he

prays to allow this petition.

5. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the land lord submitted

that tenant himself admits that he was enjoyed the premises for more than

60 to 65 years under the land lords and also in fair rent proceedings

Engineer who examined the premises and certified that building is more

than 110 year old and the same was not objected by the tenant at that time.

Due to the dilapidated condition of the building and to build the new

building the land lords preferred the rent control proceedings to vacate the

tenant. Hence, the Court below rightly appreciated this facts need no

interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3811 of 2019

6. Considering the fact that there is no dispute with regard to land

lord tenant relationship. Admittedly, the fair rent proceedings was initiated

by the land lords and the same was ended in compromise before this Court

in CRP No.2639 of 2007 and CRP Nos. 2478 and 2479 of 2007. During the

fair rent proceedings the Engineer was appointed by the Court and the said

engineer examined the age of the building and filed his report which marked

as Ex.R12 wherein it was stated as age of the building is 110 years. In fact,

the said engineer was appointed by the tenant. Besides, before the Trial

court tenant evidence is marked as R.W.1, who stated that they are in

occupation of the building for more than 72 year. So, they also admits the

age of the building which itself consider as best evidence, which was rightly

appreciated by the Court below needs no interference. Furthermore, the land

lord also produced bank pass book /Ex.B5 which itself shows that they have

sufficient means to built the building and also they are having other

properties that document were marked as Ex.B6 to Ex.B10. Therefore, it

established that land lords are having sufficient means therefore the findings

of the Court below needs no interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3811 of 2019

9. In result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. The tenant is

directed to vacate the premise within a period of three months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. No cost. Consequentially, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.08.2023

pbl

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP. No.3811 of 2019

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

Pbl

CRP. No.3811 of 2019

08.08.2023

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