[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Babu vs Saravanan on 21 January, 2026
C.R.P. No. of 6023 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.6023 of 2025 and CMP No.29769 of 2025
1.Babu
2.Mrs.Sumathi ... Petitioners
Vs.
Saravanan
represented by his power agent
Mr.Ramadevi ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2025 made in RLTA
No.9 of 2025 on the file of XXI Additional City Civil Court, Allikulam as
confirmed the order and decree dated 05.07.2024 made in RLTOP No.469 of
2022 on the file of XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Gnana Banu
For Respondents : Mr.S.Saran Prasad
ORDER
The tenants are the revision petitioners, challenging the concurrent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:55 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 6023 of 2025
orders of eviction passed by the Rent Court and confirmed by the Rent
Tribunal.
2. The respondent, as landlord, sought for recovery of possession on
the ground that there has been a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement.
The Rent Court, after giving an opportunity to both the landlord and the
tenants to lead evidence, found that the contention of the
respondents/landlord that there has been a failure to enter into a tenancy
agreement is true and proceeded to order eviction. The tenants, challenged
the said order of eviction, before the Rent Tribunal, unsuccessfully. It is as
against the concurrent findings the present revision has been filed by the
tenants.
3. Under the statute, the judgment of the Rent Tribunal is made final
and binding on the parties and therefore, there is no right by way of statutory
appeal available under the statute.
4. Be that as it may, the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India is certainly maintainable. However, the restriction upon this Court
to revise the concurrent findings passed by the Rent Court and the Rent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:55 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 6023 of 2025
Tribunal is certainly limited.
5. I do not find and grounds warranting interference with the orders
passed by the Rent Court and confirmed by the Rent Tribunal. At that
juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants came
forward to file an affidavit of undertaking that the petitioners are willing to
vacate the premises provided six months time is granted. In this regard, an
affidavit of the first petitioner Babu dated 20.01.2026 is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent takes strong exception to the
averments set out out in the affidavit where the first petitioner claims that he
has paid an advance of Rs.15,00,000/- and there is only outstanding rent of
Rs.2,00,000/- which is payable by the petitioners.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the
petitioners are in huge arrears of Rs.29,00,000/- and he claims that the
petitioners have paid Rs.15,00,000/- as advance is untenable and not even
supported by any documentary evidence. It is the specific contention of the
learned counsel for the respondent that though the petitioners before the
Rent Court as well as the Rent Tribunal claimed to be of the owner of Sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:55 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 6023 of 2025
Vari Auto Care, he would rely on an unregistered rental agreement dated
16.06.2021 which has been entered into by the first petitioner with one
J.Junu S/o Jagannathan. It is therefore the specific allegation of the landlord
that the petitioners have in fact sublet the premises.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would however state that there
is no act of subletting and the petitioners are very much in control of the
tenanted premises and seek reasonable time to vacate.
9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court, while dealing with
the revision petition challenging the concurrent orders of eviction, cannot
conduct any roving enquiry with the regard to the claims and counter claims
with regard to the payment of huge advance, arrears of rent etc., It would
suffice to confirm the concurrent findings of the Rent Court as well as Rent
Tribunal by dismissing the revision.
10. Considering that the petitioners are carrying on business in the
tenanted premises, I am inclined to grant time till 31.03.2026 to vacate and
hand over peaceful possession.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:55 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 6023 of 2025
11. Insofar as the recovery of arrears of rent , the respondent is at
liberty to approach the competent civil court and work out his remedy in the
manner known to law. Equally it shall be open to the petitioner to file a suit
for refund of alleged advance amount, if so advised.
12. It is made clear that in the event of the petitioners not vacating
and handing over possession by 31.03.2026 and there being any obstruction
by the said J.Juno or anybody claiming under Sri Vari Auto Care, such
objections shall not be entertained.
13. With the above observation, the civil revision petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
21.01.2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
sr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:55 pm )
C.R.P. No. of 6023 of 2025
P.B.BALAJI.,J
sr
To
1. The XXI Additional City Civil Court, Allikulam.
2.The XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai
21.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/01/2026 03:22:55 pm )
