Madras High Court
) M. Gagan Bothra vs Mrs.Balamanian on 10 October, 2025
CRP No.2294 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 26.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
C.R.P. (NPD) No.2294 of 2025
and
C.M.P. No.13290 of 2025
1) M. Gagan Bothra
S/o.Late Shri S.Mukanchand Bothra
2) M.Sandeep Bothra
S/o. Late Shri S.Mukanchand Bothra
3) M. Karishma Bothra
D/o. Late S.Mukanchand Bothra
All at No.8/48 Vijayaragava Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ...Petitioners/Appellants/Respondents
Vs.
Mrs.Balamanian
Flat No.1005,
Laurels Apartment
No.81/83, C.P.Ramasamy Road,
Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.
...Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER in C.R.P..:
To set aside the judgment dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned
XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in RLTA No.105 of
2024 in RLTOP No.345 of 2019 and consequentially restore RLTOP
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
CRP No.2294 of 2025
No.345 of 2019 for fresh consideration.
PRAYER in C.M.P.:
To order stay of E.P. No.32 of 2025 in RLTOP No.345 of 2019
pending on the file of the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and thus
render justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Petitioners : Mr.E. Jayasankar, Advocate for P2 & P3.
Mr.M.Gagan Bathra
Party-in-person - P1
For Respondent : Mr.G.Syed Mansoor, Advocate.
for Mr.P.B.Ramanujam Associates.
ORDER
Heard.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and
decree of the learned XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in
R.L.T.A. No. 105 of 2024 dated 09.04.2025, confirming the judgment
and decree of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai, in R.L.T.O.P. No.
345 of 2019 dated 30.04.2024.
3.For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
the original petition.
4. The petitioner/landlady sought repossession of the tenanted
premises under Section 4(2) read with Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil
Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and
Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as “TNRRLT Act”). The jural
relationship of landlady and tenants is admitted. It is also admitted that
the tenancy commenced prior to the enactment of the present TNRRLT
Act.
5.The petitioner/landlady contended that no tenancy agreement
was entered into after commencement of the Act, and therefore the
respondents are liable to be evicted. The respondents/tenants, however,
asserted that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and their
father, late Mukalchand Bothra, on 08.04.2019 for ten years, for which
Rs. 6 crores was paid, and that the agreement was registered with the
Rent Authority under Section 4 of the TNRRLT Act.
6.The petitioner/landlady firmly denies the existence of any valid
tenancy agreement and asserts that the alleged lease dated 08.04.2019 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
a forged document created as an afterthought to obstruct eviction
proceedings. Her central contention is that the lease is neither properly
stamped under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred as
'Stamp Act') nor registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter
referred as 'Registration Act'), and is therefore inadmissible in evidence.
She disputes the tenants' reliance on the TNRRLT Act 2017 registration,
alleging that the purported Certificate of Registration is fake. She
supports this claim with a formal verification report from the Tamil Nadu
Housing Board (TNHB) dated 26.10.2023, categorically stating that no
application or registration bearing T.R. No. TN-0207006010805/2020
pertains to the impugned agreement is found in the tenancy database.
7.The petitioner/landlady further asserts that this TNHB
confirmation-sourced through an inquiry initiated by the Commissioner
of Police, Vepery-proves that the QR code and certificate number
produced by the tenant are fictitious and not verifiable in any official
records. She also notes that the alleged registration date 17.02.2020 post-
dates her eviction notice dated 26.10.2019, casting serious doubt on the
authenticity and timing of the document. According to her, this indicates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
a deliberate countermeasure undertaken by the tenants after litigation had
already commenced.
8. The petitioner/landlady also relies on forensic evidence from the
Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department, which upon examining the
lease concluded that her signature had been forged. She cited Satish
Chand Makhan and Others v. Govardhan Das Byas and others
[(1984) 1 SCC 369], contending that an unregistered lease deed is
inadmissible in evidence and cannot create a valid lease for a renewed
term for want of registration as required under Section 17(1) (d) of the
Registration Act.
9.For the respondents/tenants, the first revision petitioner/first
respondent appearing in person contended that the landlady referred to
the date of the agreement in her rejoinder though it had not been
mentioned in the tenants' earlier reply, thereby showing that she knew of
the agreement and was feigning ignorance. He argued that he was denied
an opportunity to defend his case, and that the appellate court mis-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
described the parties’ roles, showing lack of proper appreciation. It is
alleged that the Rent Court declared the lease forged even before the
respondents were examined and without the lease deed being marked.
10. He relied on the TNRRLT Act, 2017, contending that digital
registration suffices and that registration with the Rent Authority under
Section 4 of the TNRRLT Act 2017 dispensed with registration under the
Registration Act and compliance with the Stamp Act. He maintained that
the lease dated 08.04.2019 was lawfully executed and digitally registered
under Section 4(3) of TNRRLT Act, which, according to him, dispenses
with compliance under the Registration Act and Stamp Act. He narrated
the adjudicatory history before the courts below, including the dismissals
of M.P. Nos. 10 of 2022 relating to his application to reject the RLTOP
on the ground that tenancy was in force and M.P.No.11 of 2023 relating
to the landlady’s application to send the agreement dated 08.04.2019 to
forensic analysis, and further of the impounding of the document with
direction to pay Rs. 66 lakhs stamp duty and penalty, filing of C.R.P. No.
71 of 2023, his custody under Act 14 of 1982, and subsequent appeal in
R.L.T.A. No. 105 of 2024. He claimed that portal records and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
screenshots show valid digital registration and sought remand enabling to
mark the impounded rental agreement. Several decisions were cited in
support.
11. It is significant that the tenancy agreement relied on by the
tenant was never marked as an exhibit before either court, being
unregistered and engrossed on insufficient stamp value. The original
document was impounded by the Rent court, which directed payment of
duty and penalty; the respondents did not comply. The document now
remains in the custody of this Court’s Registry. The point for
consideration is whether registration with the Rent Authority under
Section 4 of the TNRRLT Act dispenses with the mandatory
requirements of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act?
12. On the tenants' side, reliance was placed on Regn. T.R. No.
TN-020700600185/2020 dated 17.02.2020. However, the petitioner
produced Ex.P4, communication dated 26.10.2023 from the
Administrative Officer, TNHB, to the Inspector of Police, CBCID
(Forged Documents Wing), Chennai, categorically stating that no such
tenancy agreement was registered, which completely undermines the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
respondents’ claim.
13.The first revision petitioner contended that he had registered the
tenancy agreement under Section 4(3) of the TNRRLT Act, 2017 before
the office at Mambalam, and therefore Ex.P4, issued by the Rent
Authority at Koyambedu, is not relevant. This contention cannot be
accepted. Ex.P4 was issued by the Head Office of the Rent Authority and
addressed to the police authorities; hence, it emanates from the
competent authority and is legally sustainable. The first revision
petitioner has not produced any certified copy of the registration
certificate as obtained from the competent authority. Consequently, it
stands proved through Ex.P4 that the tenancy agreement was not
registered in the manner contemplated under Section 4(3) of the
TNRRLT Act.
14. On the revision petitioners’/tenants' side, reliance was placed
upon several decisions. The party-in-person referred to the Supreme
Court decision in K. Valarmathi & Others v. Kumaresan, SLP (C)
No. 21466 of 2024 dated 29.04.2025, wherein the Apex Court observed
that when procedural law provides the necessary legal infrastructure on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
which the edifice of rule of law is built, short-circuiting of procedure to
reach a hasty outcome is undesirable. He further cited Mrs. Mohana v.
Mrs. Rameesa Beevi, C.R.P. No. 708 of 2022 dated 14.03.2022,
wherein the Court upheld the maintainability of an eviction petition filed
under the new Act after the petition under old Rent Control Act was
dismissed for default and directed the Rent Court to afford optimum
opportunity to the tenant. In the present case, however, ample
opportunity was given to the revision petitioner, but he failed to adduce
evidence, and the Appellate Court even permitted production of Ext. R-1
to R-11. Hence, remand is unwarranted.
15. The petitioners relied on V.S. Mohan v. Sarath Naseera,
C.R.P. (PD) No. 782 of 2023 dated 30.07.2024, where it was observed
that if the landlord denies an agreement and the tenant asserts one, he
may be permitted to cross-examine. Here, the tenants pleaded existence
of an agreement but failed to mark it owing to non-payment of stamp
duty and penalty; thus, the ruling is inapplicable.
16.Reliance was also placed on Erode Educational Trust v. S.
Eswaramoorthy, AIR Online 2018 Mad 1956. That decision dealt with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
the appellate court relying on unmarked documents, leading to remand.
In the present case, the Appellate Court relied on Ex. P5 (forensic report)
addressed to the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, to
conclude that the alleged agreement was forged. The finding was based
on the proved Ex. P5, not on any unmarked document; hence that
precedent does not assist the petitioners.
17.The party-in-person persistently sought remand to mark the
agreement as an additional document. However, both courts below
refused to receive it due to non-payment of duty and penalty and want of
registration. The contention that registration with the Rent Authority
under the TNRRLT Act excludes operation of the Stamp Act and
Registration Act is untenable; remand therefore does not arise.
18.Reliance on M/s. A.R. Ventures & Another v. M/s. Roop
Square Pvt. Ltd. & Another, C.R.P. No. 7265 of 2019 (P&H) dated
12.08.2021, is also misplaced. That judgment held non-registration under
the Punjab Rent Act 1995 was only directory as that Act contained no
penal consequence. By contrast, Section 4-A of the TNRRLT Act
expressly prescribes the effect of non-registration, and in this case the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
landlady has neither admitted nor have the tenants proved the alleged
agreement. Hence, that citation is inapplicable.
19. The petitioners also cited M/s. Primex Healthcare and
Research Pvt. Ltd. v. A.A.L. Ramaswamy, C.R.P. Nos. 587 & 1937 of
2022, holding that registration under Section 4 (3) of the TNRRLT Act is
independent of compliance under the Registration Act. In that case, the
lease was registered under the Registration Act but not under the new
Act; the Court held the petition should have been returned for
compliance instead of rejecting it. Here, the alleged lease was executed
after the advent of the new Act, and is unregistered under both statutes,
and unproved; hence, that decision does not apply.
20. The petitioners further cited Prem Prakash v. Santosh
Kumar Jain & Sons and Another, Civil Appeal No. 11106 of 2017
dated 30.08.2017, which concerned default in rent and sub-tenancy and
is irrelevant. They also relied on the Division Bench judgment in W.P.
Nos. 3985 & 7400 of 2020 (Batch) Balaji vs Principal Secretary to
Government and others dated 23.04.2024, which clarifying that
although Section 4(1) of the TNRRLT Act opens with a non-obstante
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
clause, the consequences of non-registration under Sections 4(3) and 4-A
apply only within that Act, avoiding conflict with the Registration Act
1908; that observation is likewise inapplicable. Thus, the catena of
decisions cited by the revision petitioners does not assist their case.
21.The controversy is narrow. According to the landlady, after the
advent of the TNRRLT Act 2017, there was no written tenancy
agreement; hence she is entitled to repossession under Section 4(2)(a) of
the TNRRLT Act. The tenants, to rebut her claim, had to produce and
prove an agreement. The document produced was not received in
evidence owing to the bar of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, the petitioners
having failed to pay duty and penalty. Thus, the tenancy agreement relied
on is inadmissible and cannot be used for any purpose. Consequently, it
is deemed in law that no tenancy agreement exists within the meaning of
Section 4 of the TNRRLT Act. The eviction orders passed by the courts
below are in accordance with law and require no interference.
22. It is further noticed that during the pendency of this revision, a
forensic expert was examined to ascertain the genuineness of the
disputed tenancy agreement. Such an exercise is futile, for even if
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
genuine, an unmarked and insufficiently stamped instrument cannot be
acted upon. The Stamp Act, being a fiscal statute, must be applied
strictly. This Court, in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution, cannot override statutory mandates or exempt parties from
the applicability of Section 35 of the Act. The Madras High Court in
A.C. Lakshmipathy and Another v. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and
Five Others, AIR 2001 Mad 135, held that parties cannot adduce oral
evidence to prove the character of possession based on an unstamped and
unregistered document; admitting such evidence would amount to acting
upon an unstamped instrument, contrary to Section 35 of the Stamp Act.
23. It is well-settled that the mere production of a document,
without its admission and marking as an exhibit, does not make it part of
the evidentiary record. An unmarked document has no evidentiary value
and cannot be relied upon. Courts cannot look into documents that are
neither proved nor exhibited; reliance thereon would amount to
adjudication without legal evidence.
24. When the foundational document itself is inadmissible, other
interpretative arguments on the TNRRLT Act need not be considered.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
Consequently, the eviction orders passed by the courts below stand
confirmed.
25. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.10.2025
jv/ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
jv
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
1.The XX Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Records,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
PRE DELIVERY JUDGMENT
10.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/10/2025 01:33:35 pm )
