Dismissed¶126

K.Thamaraiselvan v. Sivakami Sachitanandam

Madras HC21 Jul 2025CRP/1285/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: tenant; estoppel; Section 116 Indian Evidence Act 1872; denial of landlord's title; Section 21(2)(a) TNRRRLT Act 2017/2019; Section 23 compensation; Section 40(2) bar on deciding title; eviction; own occupation; arrears Rs.15,18,000/-; Rent Control Appellate Authority; Section 47 CPC; Order XVI Rule 6 CPC subpoena; Tamil Nadu Housing Board; Article 227 revision; approbate and reprobate; locus standi; nullity of decree; Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu; S. Muruganandam v. J. Joseph; Madras High Court C.R.P. 2025.

What did the court decide?

The tenant is not justified in expecting the rent court to adjudicate upon the title of the landlady in eviction proceedings; the question of title to the demised property may be incidentally gone into but cannot be decided finally by the Rent Court. ¶55

K.Thamaraiselvan Vs Sivakami Sachitanandam — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶126

Issue for consideration

Whether the tenant, who belatedly denied the title of the landlady at the appellate and execution stages despite Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, could challenge the concurrent findings of eviction, and whether the Rent Courts could adjudicate the landlord's title. +1 more

¶52

Court's answer

¶55

Ratio / Principle

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly implies a bar on the tenant denying the title of the landlord; the tenant who admitted ownership in various forums cannot belatedly deny title.

¶116

Key takeaways

Once the tenant denies the title of the landlady, he loses even his tenancy relationship; the tenant has no locus standi to question the genuineness of the landlady's title, whose ownership stands affirmed in various forums.ratio¶60
It would be unjust to allow the revision petitioner to approbate and reprobate: he admitted the landlady's ownership by filing O.S.No.2166 of 2018 for permanent injunction, yet denied her title when facing eviction.ratio¶56
The decisions cited by the revision petitioner (Champa Lal Sharma; Rajeshwar Prasad; Krupasindu Routra; Kiran Singh; Ramesh Salunkhe; Mangat Ram; S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu) will not come to his rescue.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.): Civil Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by a tenant (K. Thamaraiselvan) dismissed. (i) C.R.P.No.1285 of 2025 challenged the Rent Control Appellate Authority's judgment dated 14.2.2025 in R.L.T.A.No.248 of 2023 confirming the Rent Controller's order dated 19.7.2023 in R.L.T.O.P.No.643 of 2022 directing eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (failure to enter into a written tenancy agreement) and rejecting the compensation claim under Section 23; (ii) C.R.P.No.1065 of 2025 challenged dismissal of the tenant's E.A.No.4 of 2024 (Order XVI Rule 6 CPC) seeking subpoena to Housing Board officials in E.P.No.34 of 2024. Held: Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bars a tenant from denying the landlord's title; a rent court may incidentally consider but cannot finally decide title; the tenant, having admitted ownership in O.S.No.2166 of 2018, was estopped from approbating and reprobating and lacked locus standi to question title, losing even his tenancy relationship by denial of title. Precedents cited by the tenant were distinguished; S. Muruganandam v. J. Joseph (2022 SCC OnLine Mad 375) was relied on. Connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed; no costs.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on : 30.04.2025

¶4

Delivered on : 21.07.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶7

C.R.P.Nos.1285 and 1065 of 2025 and C.M.P.Nos.6114 and 7681 of 2025

K.Thamaraiselvan

Petitioner

vs.

Mrs.Sivakami Sachitanandam Respondent

¶12

C.R.P.No.1285 of 2025

¶13

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 14.2.2025 passed by the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in R.L.T.A.No.248 of 2023 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2023 in R.L.T.O.P.No.643 of 2022 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶14

C.R.P.No.1065 of 2025

¶15

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree dated 1.2.2025 passed E.A.No.4 of 2024 in E.A.No.3 of 2024 in E.P.No.34 of 2024 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶16

For Petitioner : Ms.Narmadha Sampath for Ms/.S.Kumarsankar For Respondent : Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel for M/s.PV Law Associates

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Balakrishnan Vs Mr.Arunachala Thevar

Sulthania Minority Educational Vs P.K.S.Ahamed Meeran Mohideen

Velmurugan Vs the State Rep by, the Inspector of Police

Y.Elizabeth Vs the State of Tamilnadu

M.Marimuthu Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government

K. Vetrivel, Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government