Madras High Court
Mahendra Kumar vs Kusum on 8 October, 2025
CRP No.4277 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP No.4277 of 2025
and CMP No.22108 of 2025
Mahendra Kumar
Old No.86, Bazaar Road, Saidapet,
Chennai 15
Petitioner(s)
Vs
Kusum
W/o.Ashok Parekh
Old No.39, New No.9,
Dr. Jermiah Road, Vepery, Chennai 007
Respondent(s)
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 03.07.2025 in
M.P.No.03 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.362 of 2023 on the file of the XII
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Sunil
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
CRP No.4277 of 2025
For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Aashish Jain Lunia
ORDER
Challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 03.07.2025 in
M.P.No.03 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.362 of 2023 on the file of the XII
Small Causes Court, Chennai, the revision petitioner has preferred the
present civil revision petition.
2. The respondent has filed a petition for eviction under
Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and
Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (for brevity “the
TNRRRLT Act”) in R.L.T.O.P.No.363 of 2023 on the file of the XII
Small Causes Court, Chennai, as against the revision petitioner on the
ground to evict the suit mentioned property and hand over the
possession. The revision petitioner filed his counter statement and
thereafter, the respondent marked seven documents. At that stage, the
revision petitioner filed an application in M.P.No.3 of 2025 in
R.L.T.O.P.No.362 of 2023 under Section 37(1)(b) of the TNRRRLT Act
to receive the documents. Upon hearing either side, the Court below,
vide order dated 03.07.2025 dismissed the application on the ground that
the four documents sought to be marked by the revision petitioner are not
relevant to the case and further, as per Section 40 of the TNRRRLT Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
the rent Court does not have power to decide upon the title disputes.
3. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner has filed the
present civil revision petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would submit that the Court below ought to have allowed the petition, as
the rent control proceedings is summary in nature and in such
proceedings, the documents ought to have been received by the Court
below even without any petition being filed to receive additional
documents. He would further submit that the Court below has taken a
different view in a similar application in M.P.No.2 of 2025 in
R.L.T.O.P.No.358 of 2023 and allowed the same by specifically
recording that additional documents subject to proof, relevancy and
admissibility, whereas, in the impugned order, the Court below has
decided and discussed about the relevancy of the documents and thereby,
the Court below has taken two contrary views in similar type of
applications. He would further submit that the Court below has
erroneously dismissed the application. To strengthen his contentions, he
had relied upon the judgment of this Court in Balaraman
Vs.B.Nemichand (died) and Others, decided on 30.06.2014 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
C.R.P.(PD).No.1672 of 2014. He also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma
reported in 2013 (14) SCC 612.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that R.L.T.O.P. proceedings was posted for arguments and
written arguments also filed. The petition in M.P.No.3 of 2025 came to
be filed before the Court below only in order to delay the proceedings.
Further, he would submit that the revision petitioner had relied on the
claim of adverse possession in order to justify his illegal occupation of
the petition premises and the stand taken by the revision petitioner arises
out of a sale deed executed in the year 1917 in favour of one Late
Chandanmul Sowcar, grandfather of the revision petitioner and the said
late Chandanmul Sowcar never owned the property, but, in the year
1917, the title holder of the property at that time one Arumugam Naicker
executed a sale deed in favour of Boridoss Kumar vide Doc.No.225/1917
dated 11.09.1917 and subsequent to the sale deed, another sale took
place, wherein, the family members of Boridoss Kumar viz. Dhanaraj
Sowcar and others executed a sale deed in favour of Ganeshmul Khanter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
and others vide registered Doc.No.2127/1941 dated 07.10.1941 and the
said Ganeshmul Khanter and others executed Ex.P1 in favour of the
revision petitioner's mother vide Doc.No.2156/1954 dated 11.12.1954
and therefore, a portion of the petition schedule property was in
occupation by way subletting to the father of the revision petitioner
herein being Kannaialal Sowcar. He would further submit that the
documents sought to be produced by the revision petitioner have no
relevancy to the present dispute. Further, he would submit that in order to
drag on the proceedings, the revision petitioner has filed the petition
before the Court below and the same cannot be permitted. He would
further submit that the sole intention of the revision petitioner is to deny
the fact that he is the tenant under the petition premises schedule
property and that apart, the documents sought to be brought on record
have no relevancy and will not impact the adjudication of the eviction
petition filed by the respondent.
6. It is seen from the records that the revision petitioner has
filed an application to receive additional documents such as sale deed in
favour of Chandanmul Sowcar in the year 1917, electricity receipts dated
16.12.1959, letter of National India Life Insurance Company Limited
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
dated 25.02.1942 and the acknowledgement receipt dated 28.12.1944.
7. It is a well settled principle that documents can be received
subject to relevancy. However, the Court below dismissed the petition by
observing that the documents sought to be marked by the revision
petitioner are not relevant to the case and further observed that as per
Section 40 of the TNRRRLT Act, the rent Court does not have power to
decide upon the title disputes.
8. According to the revision petitioner, in his counter
statement, he has clearly mentioned that he is occupying the premises as
a true owner without any interference by adverse possession and hence,
the occupation would be treated as adverse possession of the property.
9. It is no doubt that the rent Court cannot decide upon the title
disputes between the parties. However, in order to establish the case of
the revision petitioner, the documents sought to be relied on by the
revision petitioner can be received subject to proof and relevancy.
Therefore, the finding of the Court below that the documents sought to
be marked by the revision petition are not relevant to the case is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
unsustainable in law. In order to decide the lis pending between the
parties, an opportunity should be provided to the revision petitioner to
mark certain documents. It is for the respondent to make legal and valid
objections in the manner known to law, while marking the documents.
10. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view
that the impugned order passed by the Court below is legally untenable
and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside
the order dated 03.07.2025 in M.P.No.03 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.362
of 2023 on the file of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai. Upon
receiving the additional documents, the Court below shall dispose of
R.C.O.P.No.362 of 2023 within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
08.10.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes; Neutral Citation:Yes/No
nsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
To
The XII Judge, Small Cause Court, Chennai.
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
nsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
08.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 10:20:36 pm )
