[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K. Ravindranath vs Saifee Jubilee High School And ... on 6 January, 2026
C.R.P. No. 334 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06-01-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
C.R.P. Nos. 334 and 346 of 2024
and C.M.P. No. 1599 of 2024
C.R.P. No. 334 of 2024:
K. Ravindranath
Prop.M/s New Vijaya Lodge,
No.46/2, Azeez Nagar,
2nd Street, Kodambakkam,
Chennai - 600 024.
...Petitioner/Appellant/ Respondent
Vs
Saifee Jubilee High School and Madarasersase
Yusufia Society Of Sidhpur rep by POAs
1.Shaikh Ebrahim Bhai S.K.Yusuf Bhai Haji,
Res at No.94, Broadway,
Chennai 108.
2.Shaikh Abdulla Hatim Bhai Millwala
Res at No.94,
Broadway,
Chennai 108.
...Respondents/ Respondents/Petitioner
C.R.P. No. 346 of 2024:
K. Ravindranath
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:55 pm )
C.R.P. No. 334 of 2024
Prop.M/s New Vijaya Lodge,
No.46/2, Azeez Nagar,
2nd Street, Kodambakkam,
Chennai - 600 024.
...Petitioner/Respondent/
Appellant/ Respondent
Vs
Saifee Jubilee High School and
Madarasersase Yusufia Society Of Sidhpur
rep by POAs
1.Shaikh Ebrahim Bhai S.K.Yusuf Bhai Haji,
Res at No.94, Broadway,
Chennai 108.
2.Shaikh Abdulla Hatim Bhai Millwala
Res at No.94, Broadway,
Chennai 108.
...Respondents/Petitioners/
Respondents/Petitioners
Prayer in C.R.P. No. 334 of 2024: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Docket Order
(web copy) dated 07.12.2023 made in R.C.A.No.30 of 2022 on the file of the
learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow the above CRP.
Prayer in C.R.P. No.346 of 2024: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Docket Order
(web copy) dated 07.12.2023 made in M.P.No.2 of 2023 in R.C.A.No. 30 of
2022 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and
allow the above CRP.
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:55 pm )
C.R.P. No. 334 of 2024
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M. Murali
in both revisions
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amith Shah
in both revisions
COMMON ORDER
The tenant is the revision petitioner challenging the Judgment dated
07.12.2023 passed by the Appellate Court in R.C.A.No.30 of 2022 on the file of
the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai as well as the Docket
Order in M.P.No.2 of 2023 in R.C.A.No.30 of 2022.
2.The respondent has initiated fair rent proceedings against the revision
petitioner. The respondent being a Society through its Secretary has appointed
Mohammed Yusufi Madraswala as his duly constituted Power Agent. The
authenticity and genuineness of the Power of Attorney is called in question by
the petitioner/tenant. An application was filed Under Order 3 Rule 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to recognise the Power Agent. The Rent Controller
allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/-, however, the
Appellate Authority has now set aside the cost portion alone while confirming
the Orders of the Rent Controller. These orders are now presently challenged in
the present revisions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:55 pm )
3.I do not see any merit in these revision petitions. In fact, I find that the
Appellate Authority has also rightly observed that it shall be open to the
petitioner/tenant to challenge the genuineness of the Power of Attorney by cross
examining the Power Agent. It appears that no such steps have been taken by
the petitioner, however, the Orders of the Appellate Authority are challenged
before this Court in the above revisions.
4.Mr. Amith Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
state that even pending RCOP, the very same Power Agent was permitted to
prosecute the proceedings of the respondent/School and the said orders have not
been challenged by the tenant. Be that as it may to the appeal as well as the
present revision petition, the primordial challenge is only to capacity of the
respondent/School, to represent the respondent/School and to prosecute the fair
rent petition.
5.In the light of the above, and also considering the liberty granted by the
Appellate Authority, I do not see any prejudice being caused to the respondents
as well, if the petitioner is given liberty to cross examine the Power Agent with
regard to the truth and genuineness of the Power of Attorney under which he
claims to represent the respondent/School, and also considering that the RCOP
has been pending from 2016 onwards, I dispose of these revision petitions in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:55 pm )
following manner:
(i)Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
(ii)The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to cross examine the
Power Agent only with regard to the genuineness of Power of Attorney and its
locus to represent the respondent School. A limited cross examination shall be
permitted by the Rent Controller and the same shall be completed on or before
20.02.2026. Thereafter, the Rent Controller shall decide the RCOP finally on
merits and in accordance with Law by 30.03.2026.
(iii)No costs.
06-01-2026
mps
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1.The VIII Judge,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:55 pm )
P.B.BALAJI, J.
mps
C.R.P. Nos. 334 and 346 of 2024
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:55 pm )
06-01-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 06:06:55 pm )
