Madras High Court
Tmt.A.Valarmathy vs C.Kothandan on 15 October, 2025
CRP Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.R.P.Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
and C.M.P.Nos.24960, 24964 & 24969 of 2025
CRP No.4938 of 2025
1. Tmt.A.Valarmathy
W/o. Late Arumugam
2.Tmt. Sharmila
D/o.late Arumugam ..Petitioners
Both are residing
at No.34, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai – 600 083
(Both are impleaded as legal heirs of the late Mr.Arumugam vide order dated 05.04.2024
in M.P.No.2 of 2023 on the file of XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai)
Vs
1. C.Kothandan
S/o.Chinna Kannu
No.25/05, 2nd Street, Nethaji Nagar,
Jafherkhanpet, Chennai-600 083.
2.M.Singaravelan,
S/o.Muthu Krishnan
at No.34, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai – 600 083
C.Arumugam (died) ... Respondents
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 04:04:43 pm )
CRP Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
CRP No.4939 of 2025
1. Tmt.A.Valarmathy
W/o. Late Arumugam
2.Tmt. Sharmila
D/o.late Arumugam ..Petitioners
Both are residing
at No.34, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai – 600 083
(Both are impleaded as legal heirs of the late Mr.Arumugam vide order dated 05.04.2024
in M.P.No.2 of 2023 on the file of XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai)
vs.
1. C.Kothandan
S/o.Chinna Kannu
No.25/05, 2nd Street, Nethaji Nagar,
Jafherkhanpet, Chennai-600 083.
2.M.Sathish Kumar,
Rani Mobiles,
No.34, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai – 600 083
C.Arumugam (died) ..Respondents
CRP No.4942 of 2025
1. Tmt.A.Valarmathy
W/o. Late Arumugam
2.Tmt. Sharmila
D/o.late Arumugam ..Petitioners
Both are residing
at No.34, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai – 600 083
(Both are impleaded as legal heirs of the late Mr.Arumugam vide order dated 05.04.2024
in M.P.No.2 of 2023 on the file of XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai)
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 04:04:43 pm )
CRP Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
vs.
1. C.Kothandan
S/o.Chinna Kannu
No.25/05, 2nd Street, Nethaji Nagar,
Jafherkhanpet, Chennai-600 083.
A.Khaja Mohideen (died)
2.Mrs.Kurshed Bhegham
W/o.A.Khaja Mohideen
Thiruchi Bhuhari Hotel,
No.34, Pillaiyar Kovil Street,
Jaffarkhanpet, Chennai – 600 083
(impleaded as legal heir of the late Mr.Khaja Mohideen vide order dated
11.09.2018 in M.P.No.257 of 2019 on the file of XVI Judge, Small Causes
Court, Chennai)
C.Arumugam (died) .. Respondents
PRAYER in CRP No.4938 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition has been filed
under Section Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside
the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 in M.P.No.4/2025 in
R.C.O.P.No.1419/2016 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai and subsequently hold that R.C.O.P.No.1419/2016 on the file of the
XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, are not maintainable in law,
and dismiss the same with costs.
PRAYER in CRP No.4939 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition has been filed
under Section Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside
the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 in M.P.No.4/2025 in
R.C.O.P.No.1421/2016 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 04:04:43 pm )
CRP Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
Chennai and subsequently hold that R.C.O.P.No.1421/2016 on the file of the
XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, are not maintainable in law,
and dismiss the same with costs.
PRAYER in CRP No.4942 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition has been filed
under Section Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside
the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 in M.P.No.7/2025 in
R.C.O.P.No.1420/2016 on the file of the XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai and subsequently hold that R.C.O.P.No.1420/2016 on the file of the
XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, are not maintainable in law,
and dismiss the same with costs.
For Petitioner(s): Ms.G.V.Shoba
COMMON ORDER
The unsuccessful respondents, namely, Tmt.A.Valarmathi and
Tmt.Sharmila are the petitioners herein. Originally, one
C.Kothandan/landlord has filed RCOP No.1419 of 2016 against
M.Singaravelan, RCOP No.1421 of 2016 against M.Sathish Kumar and
RCOP No.1420 of 2016 against A.Khaja Mohineed (died) and subsequently
his wife, Mrs. Kurshed Bhegham, as his legal representative, was brought
on record under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and
Rent Control Act, seeking the relief of delivery of vacant possession of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 04:04:43 pm )
CRP Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
tenancy portion of the petition mentioned property. One Arumugam, who
was also one of the brothers to the Kothandan/landlord, was impleaded as
respondent in the RCOP proceedings. Subsequently, the said Arumugam
died in the year 2023. Thereafter, the revision petitioners namely Valarmathi
and Sharmila were legal representatives of the deceased Arumugam. The
present revision petitioners, Valarmathi and Sharmila were brought on
record as respondents in the RCOP proceedings. The main RCOP is at the
stage of respondent's side evidence. At this stage, the said Valarmathi and
Sharmila have filed miscellaneous petitions in M.P.Nos.4, 4 & 7 of 2025 in
RCOP Nos.1419, 1420 & 1421 of 2016 seeking the relief to dismiss the
main RCOPs as not maintainable on the ground that there is no jural
relationship between the parties.
2. Upon hearing either side, the Court below, vide order, dated
03.07.2025, observed that the maintainability shall be considered along with
the main petitions, until then the petition will be called along with the main
petitions. Aggrieved over the same, Respondents 3 and 4 therein/revision
petitioners have preferred the present civil revision petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 04:04:43 pm )
CRP Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the
Court below failed to consider the fact that the petitioner in RCOP No.1419
of 2016 is neither the owner nor the landlord of the petition mentioned
property. By a decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.2864 of 2016, the
Civil Court has categorically declared the settlement deed in his favour as
null and void. Learned counsel further would submit that the Court below
failed to consider the fact that the decree passed on 06.04.2023 in
O.S.No.2864 of 2016 declaring the settlement deed in favour of the
respondent as null and void has attained finality. As against the decree and
judgment passed in O.S.No.2864 of 2016, the first appeal has been preferred
in A.S.No.189 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional City Civil Court but
no stay has been granted. Once the respondent's title is negated, his claim
being the landlord fails. The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the
late Arumugam, who was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
4. It is seen from the records, originally RCOP Nos.1419, 1420 &
1421 of 2016 have been preferred by Kothandan against M.Singaravelan,
Sathish Kumar and A.Khaja Mohideen. Thereafter, the first revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 04:04:43 pm )
CRP Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
petitioner's husband, one Arumugam was impleaded as one of the
respondents in the RCOP proceedings. Subsequently, the said Arumugam
died in the year 2023. Thereafter, the present revision petitioners, wife and
daughter of the deceased Arumugam were brought as legal representatives
of the deceased Arumugam. Thereafter, they have filed petitions M.P.Nos.4,
4 & 7 of 2025 in RCOP Nos.1419, 1420 & 1421 of 2016 seeking the relief
to dismiss the RCOP itself as not maintainable on the ground that there is no
jural relationship between the parties. It is not in dispute that RCOP
proceedings is summary in nature and that RCOP proceedings are at the
stage of respondent side evidence.
5. Upon considering the nature of proceedings pending between the
parties, the Court below observed that the issue of maintainability will be
decided along with the main RCOPs. There is no reason warranting
interference of the order of the Court below. However, considering the
nature of the dispute pending between the parties and considering the age of
the RCOP proceedings, the Court below is requested to dispose of the cases
as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months from the date
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 04:04:43 pm )
CRP Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.10.2025
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
kal
To
The XIV Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 04:04:43 pm )
CRP Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
kal
C.R.P.Nos.4938, 4939 & 4942 of 2025
and C.M.P.Nos.24960, 24964 & 24969 of 2025
15.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 04:04:43 pm )
