[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Arumugam vs Shanmugam (Died) on 9 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 03.12.2025 Order pronounced on : 09.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.Nos.3573 & 3574 of 2024
& CMP.Nos.19368 & 19373 of 2024
Arumugam ... Petitioner in both CRPs
Vs.
Shanmugam (Died)
1.Saraswathi
2.Sukumar
3.Maheswari
4.Gowri
5.Jayapal
6.Madhivanan
7.S.Thavasundari
8.S.Shobana
9.S.Jhansi
10.S.Deepak Kumar
11.Lakshmipathy
12.Chinnammal
13.Govindaraj
14.Damodharan ... Respondents in both CRPs
Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
Tamil Nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the
fair and decreetal order dated 27.06.2024 made in RCA.No.663 of 2017 and
RCA.No.481 of 2018 on the file the VIII Court of Small Causes/Rent
Control Appellate Authority, Chennai, reversal of the fair and decreetal
order dated 05.12.2012 made in E.A.No.116 of 2009 & E.A.No.49 of 2003
in E.P.No.49 of 2003 in RCOP.No.33 of 2001 on the file of the XII Judge,
Court, of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manoharan in both CRPs
For Respondents : Mr.S.Magesh Kumar
for M.Umashankar for RR1 to 10
RR11 to 14 vacated
in both CRPs
COMMON ORDER
The revision petitioner is the legal representative of the judgment
debtor in E.P.No.49 of 2003.
2.I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Mr.S.Magesh Kumar for Mr.M.Umashankar, learned counsel
for the respondents 1 to 10 in both the revisions.
3.Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
contend that an eviction petition had been filed, alleging landlord-tenant
relationship and the said eviction petition was ordered ex-parte. The said
application was filed in RCOP.No.33 of 2001 on the ground of willful
default. The said eviction petition was filed by one Neelaveniammal,
claiming to be the landlord against one K.Parthasarathy, claiming to be the
tenant. In the said RCOP, K.Parthasarathy was said ex-parte and the RCOP
came to be allowed on 26-07-2001. The said K.Parthasarathy filed an
application in M.P.No.544 of 2001, seeking condonation of delay in setting
aside the ex-parte order in the RCOP. The same was allowed on 13-02-
2004.
4.However, subsequently, M.P.No.97 of 2002, which was filed to set
aside the ex-parte order, was dismissed for default on 18-03-2002. The
application filed to restore M.P.No.97 of 2002 in M.P.No.352 of 2002 was
also dismissed on 10-12-2002. The said Neelaveniammal filed EP.No.49 of
2003 for delivery of possession. In the said execution petition,
K.Parthasarathy filed a counter, denying landlord-tenant relationship and
also claiming that the property belongs to the Temple (HR & CE
Department). Pending the execution petition, the landlady Neelaveniammal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
died. The revision petitioner claimed that K.Parthasarathy had executed a
registered Will on 19-03-2008 and subsequently, he also died on 02-04-2008
and that under the Will the property has been bequeathed to the revision
petitioner.
5.In the meantime, the rent control appeal in RCA.No.230 of 2004
filed by the said K.Parthasarathy, challenging the order of eviction in
RCOP.No.33 of 2001 was also dismissed as abated on 23-04-2008. In the
meantime, the execution petition was taken up and delivery was ordered on
10-07-2009. The son of Neelaveniammal, one Shanmugam filed an
application for removal of obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC.
The petitioner filed EA.No.129 of 2009 to bring himself on record as the
legal representative of deceased K.Parthasarathy, claiming under the
registered Will of K.Parthasarathy. The executing Court allowed the
impleading application filed by the revision petitioner and dismissed the
application filed for removal of obstruction and consequently, the EP also
was dismissed.
6.Parallelly, the Will said to have been executed by K.Parthasarathy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
in favour of the petitioner was sought to be probated in OP.No.536 of 2009.
The sister of the original landlady, Neelaveniammal, one Babuammal filed
an application to revoke the Letters of Administration was granted on 02-07-
2010. After contest, the said application for revocation came to be
dismissed, upholding the grant of probate in favour of the revision
petitioner. The OS Appeal filed against the dismissal of the said application
for revocation of the grant, even at the numbering stage, came to be
dismissed.
7.In the meantime, as against the orders passed by the executing
Court, the contesting respondents, legal representatives of Neelaveniammal
filed RCA.No.663 of 2017, challenging the dismissal of removal of
obstruction petition in EA.No.116 of 2009 and RCA.No.481 of 2018 against
the dismissal of EP.No.49 of 2003. Both the rent control appeals came to be
allowed by the Appellate Authority, as against which, the present revision
petitions have been filed.
8.Mr.N.Manoharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner would take me
through the order passed by the executing Court and contend that after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
elaborate enquiry and taking into account the evidence adduced by the
respective parties in the Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC application, the
executing Court has found that there existed no landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties and therefore, the eviction order cannot be validly
executed as against the revision petitioner. However, referring to the
judgment of the Appellate Authority, Mr.N.Manoharan would contend that
the Appellate Authority has erroneously proceeded to allow the appeals,
referring to the fact that K.Parthasarathy did not proceed with the rent
control appeal filed against eviction order in RCOP.No.33 of 2001. In this
regard, Mr.N.Manoharan would contend that K.Parthasarathy died on 02-04-
2008 and subsequently, the appeal came to be dismissed as abated on 23.-
04-2008 and therefore, the finding that K.Parthasarathy did not proceed with
the RCA is factually incorrect.
9.Further, Mr.N.Manoharan, would contend that the Appellate
Authority has virtually reviewed the judgment passed by this Court in the
OP proceedings, by rendering findings that the revision petitioner is not a
legal heir of the testator, K.Parthasarathy and that in the Will, there is no
recital in respect of pending RCOP, EP, as well as the RCAs. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
counsel for the petitioner would therefore contend that the Appellate
Authority has clearly erred in allowing the appeals and setting aside the well
considered order of the executing Court.
10.Per contra, Mr.S.Magesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondent-landlord would submit that the Appellate Authority
has not committed any error and he would further state that K.Parthasarathy
was very actively participating in all the Court proceedings and he was
conscious of the fact that the eviction order had been passed against him and
only in order to defeat the said order and the proceedings initiated to execute
the eviction order, the said K.Parthasarathy has even executed the Will. He
would further state that it was the specific case of the said K.Parthasarathy
that he is the owner of the superstructure and the land belongs to the temple.
However, in the Will, K.Parthasarathy has bequeathed both the land and
building in favour of the revision petitioner, which clearly shows that the
attempt to project the Will is only to defeat the legitimate rights of the
contesting respondents, namely the legal representatives of
Neelaveniammal. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision
petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
11.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the order passed by the
executing Court, as well as the judgment of the Appellate Court.
12.One Neelaveniammal, claiming to be the landlord, filed an
eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i), alleging willful default against
K..Parthasarathy, in RCOP.No.33 of 2001. It is the case of the said
Neelaveniammal that K.Parthasarathy was a tenant under one Deivanai
Ammal and after her demise, under Krishnaveni Ammal and subsequent to
the death of Krishnaveni Ammal on 15.03.1998, the petitioner has
demanded rent from K.Parthasarathy, who has failed to pay monthly rents,
taking advantage of death of Krishnaveni Ammal. Therefore, it is clear that
the said K.Parthasarathy has never recognized the said Neelaveniammal as
his landlord and it is the admitted case of the landlady, Neelaveniammal
herself that no rent was ever paid by K.Parthasarathy to Neelaveniammal.
13.No doubt, an ex-parte order of eviction was passed in the said rent
control proceedings. Attempts to set aside the ex-parte decree ended against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
the said K.Parthasarathy. Though the eviction order was challenged by way
of a regular rent control appeal, pending the appeal, K.Parthasarathy died
and therefore, the said rent control appeal also came to be dismissed. It is
subsequent to his demise that the revision petitioner has claimed to be a
legatee under a registered Will executed by the said K.Parthasarathy. His
application to get himself impleaded as legal representative of
K.Parthasarathy, alleged tenant was allowed by the executing Court.
14.The revision petitioner filed an application objecting to the
delivery. The Executing Court allowed the application filed by the legal
representatives of Neelaveniammal to remove the obstructors. Evidence was
adduced by both sides before the executing Court and on the side of the
landlords, the revision petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to
Ex.P22 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one G.Srinivasan was
examined as R.W.1 and one D.Prasad was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.R1 to
Ex.R33 were marked.
15.It was the contention of the revision petitioner that in respect of an
adjoining premises, Neelaveniammal had instituted an eviction petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
against Kannammal, who is none else than the wife of K.Parthasarathy and
said eviction petition came to be dismissed, on the ground that
Neelaveniammal had not established jural relationship of landlord and
tenant.
16.Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that out of the total extent of 900 sq.ft available in the subject property, 600
sq.ft is in the occupation of the revision petitioner and the remaining 300
sq.ft was under the occupation of Kannammal. It is claiming the very same
right that the eviction petition was filed against the said Kannammal as well
and in the said eviction petition, the Rent Controller found that
Neelaveniammal was not the landlord and she could not seek eviction before
the Rent Controller. The said order has admittedly become final. It is
claiming right and title under the very same documents that the other rent
control petition was also filed against K.Parthasarathy. However, as noticed
earlier, K.Parthasarathy did not contest the eviction petition and it resulted
in an ex-parte order and subsequently, as already discussed, the application
to set aside the ex-parte order was also dismissed, even though the
application to condone the delay was allowed and the appeal, challenging
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
the eviction order, came to be dismissed on account of the demise of
K.Parthasarathy.
17.It is in pursuance of the death of K.Parthasarathy that the petitioner
has approached this Court on the Original Side and obtained probate in
OP.No.536 of 2009. An attempt was made to revoke the grant of probate by
none else than the sister of Neelaveniammal herself and the said attempt was
unsuccessful. Though an appeal was preferred, challenging the dismissal of
the revocation of probate application, the said appeal also came to be
dismissed even at the numbering stage. Grant of probate is a right in rem
and it operates against the entire world.
18.No doubt, the probate Court does not confer title on the testator or
the legatee, who claims under the testator. The question of title has to be
decided independently and not in probate proceedings. The probate Court is
concerned only with the truth and genuineness of the Will, which is in
question before the probate Court and nothing more. In the present case, I
find that the petitioner's predecessor namely, K.Parthasarathy has asserted
his right to superstructure, claiming that he is a tenant under the temple and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
that Neelaveniammal had no right to the subject property. In fact, the land
belongs to Sri Parvathi Amman temple.
19.It is the further case of the revision petitioner that one Arumuga
Naicker, the grandfather of K.Parthasarathy, had purchased the property as
early as on 01-03-1934 under a registered sale deed under Doc.No.1854 of
1934 and subsequent to his death, his son, Kannappa Naciker was the
absolute owner and after his demise on 23-01-1973, his son K.Parthasarathy
acquired the property and has been enjoying the same. The revision
petitioner has also exhibited electricity, property tax and Metro water
receipts in the name of K.Parthasarathy in Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P7,
Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P13 and Ex.P20 to Ex.P22. On the side of the respondents,
they have also claimed right under a sale date dated 01-12-1900 and besides
payment of water bills for the year for second half of 2002 and the second
half of 1984-1985.
20.Admittedly, there is an issue with regard to the title to the subject
property. Unless the landlady, who comes to Court, invoking the jurisdiction
of the Rent Controller is able to make out a case that the respondent is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
tenant, amenable to the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court, the Rent
Controller has no jurisdiction to try the dispute in the first place. Here,
initially, the said K.Parthasarathy was set ex-parte and therefore, he did not
contest the eviction petition. However, in the application to set aside the ex-
parte order of eviction, along with an application for condoning delay, as
well as in the appeal filed challenging the eviction order in RCOP.No.33 of
2001, the said K.Parthasarathy has clearly denied the existence of a jural
relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and Neelaveniammal.
21.The obstruction made by him was under an independent right,
claiming under his grandfather, Arumuga Naicker, who had purchased the
property on 01-03-1934. Contrary to the same, the contesting respondents
claimed title under 1900 sale deed. However, the executing Court rightly
found that there is a missing link between the original title for the subject
property on both sides. However, it was noticed that Neelaveniammal
herself had issued a notice under Ex.P18 to K.Parthasarathy, where
Neelaveniammal claimed only land rent. There is nothing on record to show
that the deceased Neelaveniammal or for that matter her legal
representatives were owners of the superstructure and that the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
superstructure has been let out to K.Parthasarathy.
22.Under Ex.P12, Sri Parvathi Amman temple has claimed rents for
the land from K.Parthasarathy. However, the fact remains that
Neelveniammal had filed R.C.O.P.No.2331 of 1989 against Kannammal,
where also she claimed right under the 1900 sale deed and said RCOP came
to be dismissed, finding that there was no landlord and tenant relationship
between the parties. The said order of dismissal of the eviction petition
cannot be lightly brushed aside, for the simple reason that the said
Kannammal, against whom RCOP.No.2331 of 1989 has been filed is none
else than the wife of K.Parthasarathy and out of the total extent of 900 sq.ft,
600 sq.ft was under the occupation of K.Parthasarathy and the remaining
300 sq.ft was under the occupation of his wife Kannammal. Therefore, when
the legal representatives of Neelaveniammal had failed to establish that
K.Parthasarathy was a tenant in respect of the superstructure, the obstruction
was certainly valid and rightly the executing Court had upheld the valid
objections of the obstructor, the revision petitioner.
23.The Appellate Authority, however, on an erroneous consideration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
of the facts, has held that K.Parthasarathy having not prosecuted the rent
control appeal, his legatee, claiming under a Will cannot validly obstruct the
the execution of the eviction order. The Appellate Authority has failed to see
that even though K.Parthasarathy's attempts to get the ex-parte order of
eviction set aside were unsuccessful, despite the condonation of delay
application having been allowed, independently K.Parthasarathy had
challenged the eviction order passed in RCOP.No.33 of 2001 in
RCA.No.230 of 2004 and only on account of death of the said
K.Parthasarathy pending the appeal, the appeal came to be dismissed as
abated. The appeal was not decided on merits. In the circumstances, it was
certainly open for the executing Court to go into the objections that have
been raised by the revision petitioner.
24.Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority has shut out the objections
of the revision petitioner, summarily holding that having lost in the
challenge to the ex-parte eviction order, the said K.Parthasarathy or anybody
claiming through the said K.Parthasarathy cannot resist or obstruct the
delivery of possession in execution proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
25.The Appellate Authority also clearly fell in error in suspecting the
genuineness of the Will, when the probate has been granted by this Court
under the Indian Succession Act and it was sought to be challenged by none
else than the own sister of Neelaveniammal herself and the said challenge
was also unsuccessful, not only at the revocation stage, but also before the
Division Bench at the OS Appeal stage. The Appellate Authority erred in
holding that since Letters of Administration was granted behind the back of
the legal representatives of Neelaveniammal and that the Will does not
disclose about pending rent control proceedings, the Will has been created,
which runs contrary to the grant of Letters of Administration by this Court.
26.The Rent Control Appellate Authority cannot sit on appeal over
the grant of Letters of Administration made by this Court under the
provisions of the Indian Succession Act. In any event, when
Neelaveniammal has not been able to even prima facie establish a jural
relationship of landlord and tenant and that the superstructure was let out by
Neelaveniammal to K.Parthasarathy and thereby the eviction petition was
maintainable, the Appellate Authority grossly erred in allowing the appeals
on erroneous consideration of the factual, as well as legal position.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
27.No doubt, the grant of Letters of Administration is conclusive only
in so far as the factum of the truth and genuineness of the Will executed by
K.Parthasarathy, it does not in any way prevent the contesting respondents
from asserting their title in independent civil proceedings. However, resort
to summary proceedings under the Rent Control Act are clearly and wholly
unsustainable in the absence of Neelaveniammal being able to demonstrate
that K.Parthasarathy was a tenant under her, thereby conferring jurisdiction
on the Rent Controller to order eviction.
28.In fact, I find that the executing Court has elaborately dealt with
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and rightly came
to the conclusion that the obstruction made by K.Parthasarathy was valid
and that there is a bona fide title dispute between the parties. The well
considered findings of the executing Court have been upset by the Rent
Control Appellate Authority by misapplication of admitted facts and legal
position as well. In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the revision
petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
29.In fine, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The order dated
27.06.2024 made in RCA.No.663 of 2017 and RCA.No.481 of 2018 on the
file the VIII Court of Small Causes/Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Chennai, reversing the order dated 05.12.2012 in E.A.No.116 of 2009 &
E.A.No.49 of 2003 in E.P.No.49 of 2003 in RCOP.No.33 of 2001 by the XII
Judge, Court, of Small Causes, Chennai, are set aside. However, it is made
clear that the orders passed in these proceedings will not come in the way of
the legal representatives of Neelaveniammal to independently have their
right and title adjudicated before the competent civil Court, including to
seek recovery of possession from the revision petitioner. There shall be no
order as to costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
09.01.2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
ata
To
1.The VIII Court of Small Causes/Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Chennai.
2.The XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
P.B. BALAJI,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
CRP.Nos.3573 & 3574 of 2024
& CMP.Nos.19368 & 19373 of 2024
09.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 05:15:02 pm )
