Madras High Court

D.Suresh Jain vs Vinod R. Doishi on 7 October, 2025

                                                        C.R.P.(Pd)No.4758 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.24074 of 2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                  DATED: 07.10.2025
                                                          CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
                                               C.R.P.No.4758 of 2025
                                            and C.M.P.No.24074 of 2025

                    1. D.Suresh Jain
                    Managing Director, No. 621,
                    Annasalai, Sire Mansion, 2nd Floor,
                    (Left Side Premises), Chennai-06,
                    Also having office at, M/s. Kesar Gift
                    Mart (P) Limited, VDS House, 41
                    Cathedral Road, Chennai-89.

                                                                                      Petitioner(s)
                                                                Vs
                    1. Vinod R. Doishi
                    S/o. Late Ravilal S.Doshi, Res. at No.
                    22/53, Rukmani Road, Kalakshetra
                    Colony, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90.

                    2.Beena N Doshi
                    W/o. Late Naresh R .Doshi, Res. at
                    No. 22/53, Rukmani Road,
                    Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar,
                    Chennai-90.

                    3.Ravilal S. Doshi (HUF)
                    Rep. by his Karta Vinod R. Doshi,
                    Res. at No. 22/53, Rukmani Road,
                    Kalakshetra Colony, Besant Nagar,
                    Chennai-90.

                                                                                      Respondent(s)


                    1/9




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am )
                                                             C.R.P.(Pd)No.4758 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.24074 of 2025

                    PRAYER:          Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
                    Constitution of India to set aside the order and Decree dated 12.09.2025 in
                    MP. Sr.No. 44467 of 2025 in RLTOP No. 326 of 2025 on the file of Honble
                    XIV Court of Small Causes, Chennai

                                   For Petitioner(s):         Mr. T. Karunakaran

                                   For Respondent(s): Mrs. K.Nalini Chidambaram,
                                                      Senior Advocate
                                                      For Mrs. C.Uma For Caveator
                                                      R1

                                                           ORDER

The unsuccessful tenant has preferred the present civil revision

petition.

2. The landlord has filed an application under Section 21(2)(a) of the

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and

Tenants Act, 2017 as amended by Act XXXIX of 2018 in R.L.T.O.P.No.326

of 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to vacate the premises of the

scheduled property in a proper condition immediately due to breach of the

lease agreement dated 01.03.2022. While pending the R.L.T.O.P

proceedings, the revision petitioner/tenant has approached this Court under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India in C.R.P.No.4024 of 2025 to strike off

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am ) C.R.P.(Pd)No.4758 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.24074 of 2025

the proceedings in R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of 2015 pending on the file of the XIV

Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. This Court, on 26.08.20925, while

disposing of the Civil Revision, permitted the revision petitioner/tenant to

advance arguments on the maintainability of R.L.T.O.P when considering the

issue that arises for consideration in the application for recovery of possession

under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/tenant

has filed an application in M.P.Sr.No.44467 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of

2025 under Section 37(1)(j) of the Act to strike off the above

R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of 2025.

3. Upon hearing either side, the Court below, vide order dated

12.09.2025, dismissed the application on the ground that this Court, in

C.R.P.No.4024 of 2025, permitted the revision petitioner/tenant to advance

arguments on the maintainability of R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of 2025 only while

considering the issue that arises for consideration in the application for

recovery of possession. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have

preferred this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that

though the revision petitioners / landlord entered into a Deed of Lease on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am ) C.R.P.(Pd)No.4758 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.24074 of 2025

01.03.2022, the same was not registered before the competent authority as per

Section 4(3) of the Act. When the Deed of Lease is not registered, the

respondents/landlord can only invoke the legal proceedings before the Civil

Court. The learned counsel would further submit that the Rent Court ought

not to have entertianed the R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of 2025 when the Deed of lease

dated 01.03.2022 is not registered before the competent authority as per the

provisions of the Act. The learned Rent Court Judge dismissed the petition

by relying upon the judgment in N.Ambazhagan Vs.A.K.Mohammed Yunus

holding that the Rent Court cannot entertain a petition filed under Section

37(1)(j) of the Act. However, the learned Judge failed to consider the

judgment of this Court reported in 2022(2)CTC 291[S.Muruganandam

Vs.J.Joseph] wherein it has been held that the landlord is not entitled to file a

case under the Act when the Deed of Lease is not registered before the Rent

Authority as per Section 4(3) of the Act. Therefore, the trial Court, without

providing an opportunity to the tenant to establish his case, dismissed the

application even without numbering the same which is unsustainable. Hence,

the tenant is before this Court.

5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am ) C.R.P.(Pd)No.4758 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.24074 of 2025

respondents/landlord would submit that the revision petitioner /tenant had

already approached this Court by filing C.R.P.No.4024 of 2025 to strike off

the proceedings in R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of 2025 and they themselves withdrew

the petition. Liberty was granted to advance arguments on the maintainability

of the R.L.T.O.P before the Rent Court. Accordingly, the revision petitioner

made his submissions on the maintainability of the R.L.T.O.P before the Rent

Court. Upon considering the arguments, the Rent Court has come to the

conclusion that the R.L.T.O.P is maintainable and the case was taken on file.

She would further submit that once again, the revision petitioner has filed an

application in M.P.Sr.No.44467 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of 2025 under

Section 37(1)(j) of the Act to strike off the above R.L.T.O.P. The Rent Court,

upon considering the observations made by this Court in C.R.P.No.4024 of

2025 has rightly dismissed the application. There is no justifiable reason to

interfere with the same. To strengthen the contentions, she would rely upon

the following judgments:

(i) C.R.P.No(NPD) Nos.3056 of 2021 etc. dated

04.02.2022[S.Muruganandam Vs.J.Joseph]

(ii) C.R.P.No.2502 of 2025 [M.Narayanaswamy Vs.

K.Palani Kumar and others]

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am ) C.R.P.(Pd)No.4758 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.24074 of 2025

6. Heard the learned counsels on both sides and perused the materials

available on record.

7. It is seen from the records that the respondents/landlords have filed

an application under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act to vacate the premises of the

scheduled property in a proper condition immediately due to breach of the

agreement for lease dated 01.03.2022. The revision petitioner had already

approached this Court in C.R.P.No.4024 of 2025 to strike of the proceedings

in R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of 2025. He sought permission to withdraw the revision

with liberty to agitate the maintainability of R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of 20255.

This Court, by order dated 26.08.2025, while disposing of the R.L.T.O.P,

granted liberty on the following terms:

“The Rent Court shall permit the revision petitioner / tenant to advance arguments on the maintainability of R.L.T.O.P.No.326 of 2025 while considering the issue that arises for consideration in the application for recovery of possession under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am ) C.R.P.(Pd)No.4758 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.24074 of 2025

8. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 37(1) (j) of the

Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and

Tenants Act, 2017:

37. Powers of Rent Court and Rent Tribunal.— (1) The Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal, for the purpose of discharging their functions under this Act, shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908) for the purposes of,— .......

(j) any other matter as may be prescribed.

9. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner has already approached

this Court and this Court has granted liberty to advance arguments on the

maintainability of the R.L.T.O.P while considering the issue that arises for

consideration in the application for recovery of possession filed under Section

21(2)(a) of the Act. Though this Court has granted liberty to the revision

petitioner to make his submissions in the main R.L.T.O.P, he has filed

another application before the Rent Court to strike off the proceedings of

R.L.T.O.P which is unsustainable. Hence, the Court below has rightly

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:26 am ) C.R.P.(Pd)No.4758 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.24074 of 2025

dismissed the application. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the

impugned order. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The