Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 288 Mad
Judgement Date : 20 January, 2026
C.R.P. (MD) No. 335 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.01.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.335 of 2022
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.1446 of 2022
Jaffer Ali ... Petitioner
-vs-
Syed Pathu ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, to revise the fair and decreetal order as passed by the
Rent Control Appellate Authority, ie., the learned Principal Subordinate Judge,
Dindigul made in R.C.A.No.14 of 2018, dated 18.11.2021 confirming the fair
and decreetal order of the learned Principal District Munsif, Dindigul made in
R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2014, dated 04.08.2018 directing the
petitioner/appellant/respondent/tenant to vacate the premises let out for rental
purpose by the respondent to the petitioner forthwith within a time frame of two
months.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham
For Respondent : No Appearance
*****
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:37 pm )
C.R.P. (MD) No. 335 of 2022
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and
decreetal order dated 18.11.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.14 of 2018 on the file of
the Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Dindigul,
hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court' for short confirming the fair
and decreetal order, dated 04.08.2018, passed in R.C.O.P. No. 49 of 2014 on
the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Rent Controller, Dindigul,
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short).
2.Heard Mr.S.Palani Velayutham, learned Counsel for the petitioner and
perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
3.The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is
that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and the
Courts below were erred in granting an order of eviction. The first appellate
Court has pointed out in the impugned order that the petitioner has not been
able to show any proof for the mortgage by any documentary evidence and
mere bare statement of third parties cannot be relied.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:37 pm )
4.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments, has consistently held
that in the absence of any evidence to be contrary to the relationship of landlord
and tenant, it has to be inferred when there is a delivery of possession of the
property by way of occupation between the parties. Hence, the impugned order
is confirmed.
5.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.01.2026
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No
cmr
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Dindigul,
2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Rent Controller, Dindigul,
3.The Section Officer, Vernacular Records Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:37 pm )
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
cmr
20.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 06:26:37 pm )
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!